Seattle Attorneys Blog
The Washington Supreme Court recently considered a case in which a resentencing court declined to consider the defendant’s youthfulness at the time he committed the crime. According to Court’s opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder for a crime that occurred when he was 18 years old. His offender score was 4, including a prior drug possession conviction. The standard sentencing range was 225-325 months and he was sentenced to 300 months. The judge also imposed restitution, jointly and severally with his codefendants, including part of the victim’s funeral expenses.
The Washington Supreme Court held that former RCW 69.50.4013(1), part of the simple drug possession statute, violated due process rights and was void in State v. Blake. After State v. Blake, the defendant was eligible to have his unlawful drug possession conviction vacated. This caused his offender score to drop to 3, thereby lowering the standard range.
The defendant requested that his youthfulness be considered in resentencing. The resentencing judge stated, “. . . that’s a different issue than the one we’re talking about today.”
The prosecutor asked the judge to again impose a 300-month sentence, noting it was within the standard range. The defendant’s attorney asked for a 289-month sentence, arguing it was “proportionally within the new range . . .”
When the defendant was permitted to speak, he again requested the court to consider his youthfulness. The judge told him to address that issue “in a different format. . . “ The judge sentenced him to a total of 289 months.
The defendant appealed, arguing the court erred in refusing to meaningfully consider his youth in resentencing him. The appeals court affirmed, concluding any error harmless because the court ultimately imposed the sentence requested by the defendant.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review. The Court noted that a defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing when an error in their offender score affects their sentencing range. Unless limited by the direction of an appellate court, the trial court can consider issues that were not part of the previous proceedings. State v. Vasquez.
The Court noted that a sentencing judge abuses their discretion if they do not consider the youthfulness of a defendant who was 18-years-old when the crime occurred if requested to do so.
In this case, there was no mandate from an appeals court limiting the scope of the defendant’s resentencing. The Court therefore concluded the resentencing court abused its discretion in failing to acknowledge its discretion to consider the defendant’s youthfulness and in failing to actually consider his youthfulness when appropriate.
The Court concluded the defendant did not receive the full resentencing to which he was entitled. The Court also noted the resentencing court “had a legal obligation to consider relevant sentencing facts. . .,” including the defendant’s youthfulness.
The state argued the court had not refused to consider the defendant’s youthfulness, but was instead concerned he was not prepared to argue that his youthfulness justified a lower sentence. The Court acknowledged that the defendant had the burden to show a downward departure from the standard sentencing range was warranted, but he had expressly requested the court consider his youthfulness. The Court noted that the resentencing court was then obligated to consider it.
The Court also pointed out the defendant is not required to present witnesses or file “a mitigation package.” The defendant did, however, have the burden of showing how his youthfulness limited his culpability.
The Court acknowledged the resentencing court did not have to lower the defendant’s sentence based on his youth, but pointed out it was required to meaningfully consider it.
The Court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the ordered restitution.
The Court remanded the case to the trial court to hold another sentencing hearing. Four justices dissented, however.
As this case shows, youthfulness can be taken into consideration at sentencing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should contact a skilled Washington criminal defense attorney. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562.