Facts: Petitioner Joshua Harris was convicted of driving with a suspended driver’s license and driving without a required ignition interlock device in the Seattle Municipal Court and sentenced to 90 days in jail. Harris subsequently appealed his sentence, asserting that he should have been credited for the time he spent on electronic home monitoring prior to his trial and his sentence reduced accordingly and that Washington Revised Code §9.94A’s crediting of felony defendants but not misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic home monitoring denies misdemeanor defendants equal protection of the law in violation of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §12 of the Washington State Constitution and that not crediting him for the time he spent on electronic home monitoring also subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the 5^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §9 of the Washington State Constitution. The Superior Court for King County ordered the city of Seattle to credit Harris for the time he spent on electronic home monitoring. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that denying credit to misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic monitoring neither denies them equal protection of the law nor subjects them to double jeopardy. Harris appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does crediting felony defendants but not misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic home monitoring deny misdemeanor defendants equal protection of the law?

Does crediting felony defendants but not misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic home monitoring subject misdemeanor defendants to double jeopardy?

Conclusion: Justice Wiggins’ opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that §9.94A’s crediting of felony defendants but not misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic home monitoring has a rational basis insofar as it serves the legitimate state interest of preserving jail time as a possible sentence for misdemeanor defendants given that the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine and periods of electronic home monitoring pending trial regularly exceed 90 days. The Court also held that crediting misdemeanor defendants for time spent on electronic home monitoring would undermine the distinction in misdemeanor sentencing statutes between time served on electronic home monitoring and time served in jail. Finally, the Court found that denying misdemeanor defendants credit for time spent on electronic home monitoring does not subject them to double jeopardy given that electronic home monitoring is not punitive in either its intent or its effect and does not subject defendants to the hardships associated with incarceration.

Docket No. 83867-4 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 61629-3)

Petitioner: Joshua Harris

(Counsel: Christine Anne Jackson and Kristen Murray)

Respondent: Edsonya Charles

(Counsel: Richard Edward Greene)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, May 12th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Edsonya Charles (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins
(Majority)