Docket No. 86853-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 62237-4)
Synopsis: Whether in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), sentence aggravating factors may be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, and if so, whether the factor based on the infliction of bodily harm that “substantially exceeds” the level necessary to satisfy the elements of the crime is unconstitutionally vague.
Blog Archives
State v. Cooper
Docket No. 86733-0 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40833-3)
Synopsis: Whether a deferred adjudication under Texas law, which is not treated as a conviction unless supervision is revoked and the defendant has is then adjudicated guilty, counts as a prior conviction in calculating a Washington offender score.
Synopsis: Whether a deferred adjudication under Texas law, which is not treated as a conviction unless supervision is revoked and the defendant has is then adjudicated guilty, counts as a prior conviction in calculating a Washington offender score.
State v. Gray
Docket No. 86359-8 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40289-1)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a murder prosecution had authority to modify the defendant’s restitution more than 180 days after sentencing to include the victim’s funeral and burial expenses, which were ascertainable within the 180-day period.
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a murder prosecution had authority to modify the defendant’s restitution more than 180 days after sentencing to include the victim’s funeral and burial expenses, which were ascertainable within the 180-day period.
State v. Graciano
Docket No. 86530-2 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40289-1)
Synopsis: Whether in considering whether multiple crimes constitute the “same criminal conduct” for sentencing purposes, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion or considers the issue de novo.
Synopsis: Whether in considering whether multiple crimes constitute the “same criminal conduct” for sentencing purposes, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion or considers the issue de novo.
State v. Hunley
Docket No. 86135-8 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39676-9)
Synopsis: Whether RCW 9.94A.500(1) and .530(2), which provide that a prosecutor’s criminal history summary is prima facie evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions, and that a defendant’s “acknowledgment” of criminal history includes not objecting to the prosecutor’s summary, unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove prior convictions for sentencing purposes.
Synopsis: Whether RCW 9.94A.500(1) and .530(2), which provide that a prosecutor’s criminal history summary is prima facie evidence of a defendant’s prior convictions, and that a defendant’s “acknowledgment” of criminal history includes not objecting to the prosecutor’s summary, unconstitutionally relieves the State of its burden to prove prior convictions for sentencing purposes.
Washington v. Rowland
Docket No. 86117-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64262-6) Facts: Petitioner Michael Rowland was convicted of first degree murder and taking a motor vehicle without permission in the Superior Court for Snohomish County. Based upon the judge’s finding of deliberate cruelty, Rowland was sentenced to an exceptional sentence. Rowland subsequently filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals challenging the calculation of his offender score. After the state of Washington conceded that Rowland’s offender score had been improperly calculated, the Washington Court of Appeals remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the superior court imposed a standard range sentence corresponding to the reduced offender score and reimposed the sentence enhancement for deliberate cruelty. Rowland appealed his sentence, asserting that a jury finding was required to support the exceptional sentence under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington. Continue reading
State v. Saenz
Docket No. 84949-8 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 27683-0)
Synopsis: Whether, in attempting to prove the existence of a prior strike offense for persistent offender purposes, the State adequately established that the defendant, who was a juvenile when he committed the prior offense, validly waived juvenile court jurisdiction and consented to trial in adult court, qualifying the offense as a strike offense.
Synopsis: Whether, in attempting to prove the existence of a prior strike offense for persistent offender purposes, the State adequately established that the defendant, who was a juvenile when he committed the prior offense, validly waived juvenile court jurisdiction and consented to trial in adult court, qualifying the offense as a strike offense.
Washington v. Siers
Docket No. 85469-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63697-9) Facts: Respondent Brian Siers was charged with two counts of second degree assault after stabbing two men, one of whom was attempting to break up a fight between Siers and another person, outside of a Seattle restaurant. Although no aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information, the state of Washington notified Siers prior to trial of its intent to seek a good Samaritan aggravator on one of the counts. After the state and Siers had each rested their case, Siers objected to the state’s proposed jury instructions on grounds that the good Samaritan aggravator had not been charged in the information. The trial court overruled Siers’ objection and Siers was found guilty of both charges. The jury also returned a special verdict finding that Siers assaulted one of the victims while they were acting as a good Samaritan. Siers appealed his conviction and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that the state’s failure to plead the good Samaritan aggravator in the information functionally undermined the jury’s verdict on the substantive crime of second degree assault. Continue reading
In re personal restraint of Talley
Docket No. 83284-6 (from Pierce Case No. 08-1-04680-1 & 08-1-04682-8) Facts: Petitioner Teddy Talley was convicted of murder in the Superior Court for Skamania County and sentenced. Talley subsequently appealed his sentence, asserting that the Skamania County Jail’s failure to provide him with opportunities to earn good time credit while he was awaiting sentencing violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Continue reading
State v. Sublett
Docket No. 84856-4 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 38034-0) Synopsis: Whether the California crime of second degree robbery is legally comparable to the Washington crime of second degree robbery, qualifying it as most serious offense for persistent offender purposes. Continue reading