Archive for the ‘Sentencing’ Category

WA Supreme Court: A Boy Named Laura Will Wash That Conviction Right Out of His Hair

October 20, 2010

State v. Moeurn

Moeurn, who’s first name happens to be Laura, got involved in a little altercation involving a little 2X4. The little 2X4 happened to itself get into an altercation with someone’s head. The head was displeased about getting hit with a 2X4 and evidently called the police, who decided that Laura, and not the 2X4, should be charged.

Laura was eventually convicted and the court included an old juvenile adjudication in calculating the offender score. The conviction had washed out though:

In sum, a conviction that has washed out is not relevant to the calculation of an offender score. The Court of Appeals wrongly reversed the order by “scoring” a prior conviction before determining if it had washed out.

 

WA Supreme Court: Great Bodily Harm can only be Grossly Exceeded by Death

October 14, 2010

State v. Stubbs

Stubbs stabbed a guy in the neck after the ol’ “LOOK, A SPIDER” ruse.

You see, Stubbs had just smoked some meth and then went to a guys motorhome. The guy didn’t want to let him in because he thought that Stubbs would abscond with something which wasn’t his. Short of the motorhome itself, more meth, or a collection of comic books, I’m not sure what Stubbs would make off with. Anyhow, Stubbs must have taken offense because he shouted that there was a spider. Falling for the old “Meth-head shouting Look There’s a Spider!” ruse, the guy turned. Insert knife in neck.

This is why you should never trust a meth head when he tries to warn you about spiders. This also holds true for the bugs supposedly crawling beneath his skin. Instead just offer some calamine lotion.

Anyhow, why are we here? They placed an exceptional sentence on him based on the fact that “victim’s injuries substantially exceeded the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements of the offense.” Well, seeing as he was convicted of a crime which required great bodily harm (read: close to death), there’s really no way to “substantially exceed” great bodily harm without dying.

WA Court of Appeals – Div. I: Sex Offenders Can Be Ordered to Stay Away from Kids

September 25, 2010

State v. Williams

I’m linking to the unpublished version of this on Google Scholar, but rest assured its now published. Unfortunately, Google Scholar is behind and doesn’t have the published version of this up.

This opinion shouldn’t come as a surprise. He was convicted of rape of a child in the third degree, then was homeless and failed to register. A small problem when you’re trying to make sure someone doesn’t reoffend. After picked up for failing to register, the trial court placed a no-contact with children unsupervised into his sentence. Oddly enough, Division I found that no contact with children is related to the crime of failing to register as a sex offender for an underlying offense of raping a child. Weird, I know. They really had to stretch the bounds of legal interpretation to get to that one. Darned activist judges.

Because this is quite possibly the shortest opinion outside of denial of review, The Prof is going to get crazy and post the whole thing after the jump. Watch out! You never know what may happen next!

 

(more…)

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Gang Affiliation and Witness Intimidation Not Prejudicial for This Walmart Shopper

August 15, 2010

State v. Saenz

Mr. Saenz was a member of a gang called the Bell Garden Locos in Sunnyside, Washington. Saenz got into a verbal altercation at Walmart with two 15 year old members of a rival gang, the Lower Valley Locos. Walmart makes me crazy too. I become a member of the Low Price Locos and our motto is “I don’t care how cheap it is, get me the hell out of here!”  And their logo is a smiley face…I don’t think so.

Walmart guy

The parties left the store and Saenz had a friend, Guillen, pick him up to pursue the two rivals. They found the rivals driving through the parking lot. Saenz started shooting and the two rivals exited their vehicle and ran. Saenz shot one of them in the back. The other fell while trying to escape and put his head through the glass door at Ace Hardware.

Saenz and Guillen escaped, but were later turned in by a relative. Guillen agreed to testify against Saenz for a plea deal. Saenz was charged with two counts of first degree assault and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. At trial, the State sought admission of Saenz’s gang affiliation. “The court found that three detectives had specific knowledge of language, formation, affiliation, and overall gang structure. The trial court allowed the detectives to testify regarding gangs and gang activity to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, and absence of mistake or accident.”

The State also sought to introduce evidence of witness intimidation. Saenz had been sending messages to Guillen while they were both in jail. Saenz wanted Guillen to take responsibility for the crimes because he wouldn’t get as much time. Guillen was warned that if he didn’t take the rap, then he and his family would be harmed. Guillen was assaulted in the jail by a group of inmates who were “sending a message.” The court allowed the evidence regarding witness intimidation to show guilty knowledge of the crimes and participation.

Saenz was convicted on all charges and the State sought to have Saenz sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole because he was a persistent offender. The judge disagreed that Saenz was a persistent offender because Saenz had plead guilty to second degree assault and custodial assault when he was 15 years old. When Saenz plead guilty to these charges he signed a stipulation declining juvenile jurisdiction and specifically waived the requirement of a declination hearing. Saenz was represented by counsel when he plead guilty. However, the judge who took the plea failed to make any findings regarding the declination of juvenile court jurisdiction or Saenz’s waiver. So the trial court in the present case concluded that these convictions did not qualify for purposes of persistent offender status because there was no express waiver of juvenile jurisdiction. Saenz had one other serious offender conviction, but the statute requires two convictions for persistent offender status.

Saenz appealed the admission of gang affiliation evidence and witness intimidation. The State appealed the court’s failure to sentence as a persistent offender.

Since the trial court had weighed the probative value of the evidence of gang affiliation against its prejudicial impact and held that the evidence was being introduced to establish motive, intent, opportunity, and res gestae for the crimes charged, the Court of Appeals did not disturb the ruling. Similarly, the witness intimidation evidence was also properly weighed by the trial court and admitted.

Saenz also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. However, given the testimony of the victim AND Saenz’s own homie that he was the shooter, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient.

In addition, the Court of Appeals found that when Saenz entered his plea as a 15 year old, he knowingly and intelligently waived juvenile court jurisdiction. Thus he was a persistent offender under the statute and the trial court was reversed. Saenz will be getting LIFE! Maybe he can start a new gang called the Life Time Locos!

Life

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Six Months Not “Shortly After”…This Time

August 4, 2010

State v. Combs

This one is nice and short. Combs was released from prison on a drug possession charge. Six months later he was charged with attempting to elude a police officer. RCW 9.9A.535(3)(t) allows a court to impose an exceptional sentence if the “defendant committed the current offense shortly after being released from incarceration.” This is referred to as “rapid recidivism.” Say that five times fast!

This case came down to what does “shortly after” mean? Is it a week? A month? Six months? The Court of Appeals held that considering the facts of this case, six months was not “shortly after.” But they weren’t going as far as to draw a line in the sand at six months for every case. The reasoning being that if the defendant had no opportunity to re-offend for six months or immediate access to the means to re-offend (i.e., it takes a while to find contraband), then it could be considered “shortly after.” In addition, some crimes “require a lengthy period of time to plan or come to fruition.” It takes time to knock over a liquor store! Combs exceptional sentence was reversed.

WA Supreme Court: Measuring Wheel Needs Authentication on Close Calls; No Burden Shifting to Prove Not in School Zone

August 2, 2010

State v. Bashaw

NewImage.jpg

(The beard makes him more accurate…SCIENCE!)

Bashaw was convicted of selling drugs, as often happens. The court admitted evidence obtained through the use of one of those little rolly devices. That is the scientific technical term. Don’t check, no need. I know my science.

The court also allowed a jury instruction that required unanimity to show that Bashaw was not in a school zone.

As you can imagine, the court took issue with the burden shifting. It is not up to the defendant to prove anything. Rather, is on the state to prove each essential element of the charge, Including aggravating factors. The court also took issue with the fact that the little wheel thingy was not authenticated as to its reliability. Unfortunately, this only makes a difference as to one of the charges, as the other two were well within the school zone such that any admission of little wheeled thingy evidence would not have made a difference to the jury anyhow.

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Assault Was Part of Rape and Thus Cannot Convict for Both Crimes

July 29, 2010

State v. Williams

This is a lovely story about a swell guy (note sarcasm). Floyd Williams was convicted on two counts of rape and one count of second degree assault with sexual motivation, which involved two victims. The cases had been consolidated and tried together. The trial court admitted testimony from the victim of Floyd’s prior rape conviction. Floyd was sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender based on these convictions and the prior rape conviction.

Floyd appealed the admittance of the prior victim’s testimony. In addition, Floyd claimed that the assault charge should have merged with the rape charge.

Evidence Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other crimes to show that the defendant acted in conformity with that character-had a propensity to commit this crime. But evidence of prior crimes may be admitted for other purposes, “such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Since the facts of the earlier rape were very similar to the facts of both the recent rapes, the trial court held that it showed a common scheme and the prejudice of the testimony was minimal. The Court of Appeals agreed.

Next Floyd argued that he could not be convicted of both assault and rape as the assault was part of the rape and the assault had no independent purpose. Since the assault on the victim before and during the rape is what raised it to the level of First Degree Rape, Floyd couldn’t be convicted of both charges. There was merger of the two crimes and thus the conviction for assault was vacated. Boy, I bet ole Floyd was glad to get that assault off his record. I mean what would his employer think?

Three strikes and you’re out Floyd. Out for life! Floyd also made some Pro-se arguments including that the forensic lab who conducted the tests on the victims had a history of making mistakes. But at trial he argued that the sex was consensual. Nice try Floyd.

WA Court of Appeals at Div. II: Argument that Rick Astley is Not a White Guy Fails

July 19, 2010

State v. McGrew III

You may remember a way back there was a hullaballoo about an offender getting mad at getting a firearm enhancement when the jury found a deadly weapon. The court reversed because a deadly weapon could be something other than a firearm. Well here is the opposite problem. Well, not really a problem. A firearm is always a deadly weapon.

Let’s see if we can break this down. I am white. Rick Astley is white. Consider a firearms enhancement like Rick Astley. Say a trial court said…hey, you’re Justin, and therefore a white guy, and we will give you a white guy enhancement:

Photo on 2010-07-15 at 09.21.jpg

(IS a white guy)

But say it was even worse than being a white guy to be Rick Astley. And the court found that I was Rick Astley because it already found I was a white guy.

 

NewImage.jpg

(NOT Justin)

However, you can say that if you find that a person is Rick Astley to begin with, that he is in fact a white guy. That’s not only science, but it is me Rick-rollin’ you!!!!

So needless to say, the fact that a firearms enhancement was found does in fact mean Rick Astley is a white guy (or that there was a deadly weapon involved). So needless to say, arguing a firearm is not necessarily a deadly weapon fails.

He also claimed that the firearm enhancement punished the same criminal conduct as the firearm charged. Unfortunately, this has come up before. A sentencing enhancement isn’t a sentence, and thus falls outside double jeopardy.

 

 

 

WA Court of Appeals at Div. II: Free Crimes Factor May Be Considered By Trial Court Rather Than Jury

July 19, 2010

State v. McNeal

McNeal was resentenced under Blakely. On resentencing, the trial court impanelled a jury to hear evidence on free crimes. Under Free Crimes, a sentence may be placed outside the standard sentencing range if failing to do so would result in the offender essentially getting a free pass on one or more of his crimes. That’s the best I can do with it, I’m a Plaintiff attorney. The only math I know is 1/3. (Well, that’s not true, I actually do still know how to do a derivative in calculus. That’s right, where f(x)=x^3, then d(x)=3x^2. I think that’s the case. Its what some guy who looked like Gandalf told me online. Seriously, my calculus professor taught me online and looked like Gandalf. I trust a hippy wizard with my math over a scientist any day.). Because he’s no longer teaching at Bellevue College, I instead give you an artist’s rendering of what he may look like now.

NewImage.jpg

Anyhow, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court, on remand, could consider free crimes without impanelling a jury, seeing as no facts need to be found. Its just math.

Court of Appeals: Div. III – Fifth Amendment Violation Was Harmless Error in Conviction of Child Rape

July 4, 2010

State v. Epefanio

Mr. Epefanio was a teacher’s aide and basketball coach at Salk Middle School in Spokane, Washington. Apparently Mr. E had a thing for the young girls at the school. He asked Brianna Summers to help him with the basketball team and they started a sexual relationship when Brianna was 15 years old. Mr. E was 25!

Eventually Brianna got pregnant, moved in with Mr. E, and then the honeymoon was over. Brianna was now 18 years old (probably too old for Mr. E). After the couple separated, Brianna determined that what Mr. E did was wrong. She was older and wiser! She sued the school district and reported Mr. E to the police. Mr. E was charged with Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree and Rape of a Child in the Third Degree.

At the criminal trial, Brianna testified about her sexual history with Mr. E. A friend of Brianna’s testified that she hung out with the couple and witnessed them having sex. Brianna’s boyfriend Jared (she had a boyfriend through all of this?!) testified that he had found out about the relationship, told Brianna’s parents, and then confronted Mr. E in front of Brianna’s parents.

Mr. E moved to dismiss the case after the State rested. The court dismissed the misconduct charge, but not the rape charge. On defense, Mr. E took the stand in his own behalf and denied having sex with Brianna when she was 15. He would never do such a thing! He waited until she was 16 and then knocked her up. When the State attempted to cross-examine Mr. E about Jared’s confrontation, the defense objected as it was outside the scope of direct examination. The court agreed. However, the State called Mr. E as a rebuttal witness and examined him on the same subject (the confrontation) and the court allowed it.

The jury convicted Mr. E and returned a special verdict that the offense was "part of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse of the same victim under the age of 16 years manifested by multiple incidents over a prolonged period of time." The stand range for this crime is 12 to 14 months, but with the special verdict, the court imposed an exceptional sentence of 20 months. Mr. E also moved for relief from judgment based on the argument that the State violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination when he was called as a rebuttal witness. The court denied the motion. Mr. E appealed the conviction and the exceptional sentence.

The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient and persuasive evidence to convict Mr. E. They also held that it was a violation of Mr. E’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination to call him as a rebuttal witness regarding testimony outside the scope of direct examination. HOWEVER, "If the untainted evidence is so overwhelming that it necessarily leads to a finding of the defendant’s guilt, the error is harmless." State v. Koslowski. So even if you remove the tainted evidence (Mr. E’s testimony about his confrontation with Jared), there was still ample evidence to convict him. HARMLESS ERROR!! The Court of Appeals also confirmed the exceptional sentence.

I’m sure the prison population will help Mr. E straighten out his penchant for young girls.

Inmates


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers