Narrative Opinion Summary
The Court of Appeals of Washington reviewed the appeal of a defendant challenging his sentencing following multiple felony convictions. The defendant, with a criminal history including forgery and drug offenses, received a 34-month sentence to run consecutively with prior sentences. He argued the consecutive sentencing was erroneous, while the State contended that forgery convictions should have been considered. The court examined whether the appeal was permissible under RAP 18.15, allowing for review of sentences exceeding standard ranges. It highlighted that sentences within the presumptive range are not appealable under RCW 9.94A.210(1), but exceptions exist for extraordinary sentences per RCW 9.94A.120(13). The court addressed the defendant's equal protection claim regarding differences in treatment between pre- and post-SRA convictions, rejecting it based on statutory interpretations. It affirmed the trial court's sentencing approach, consistent with RCW 9.94A.400, noting the defendant's sentence was within standard limits and the claim of obligatory consecutive sentencing was unfounded. The court upheld the sentence, denying the motion for modification, and affirmed the commissioner's ruling, emphasizing legislative discretion over perceived sentence severity.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealable Sentences Under RAP 18.15subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that appeals can be made on exceptional sentences that deviate from standard concurrent/consecutive sentencing guidelines per RCW 9.94A.120(13).
Reasoning: Furthermore, RCW 9.94A.120(13) allows for appeals on exceptional sentences that deviate from standard concurrent/consecutive sentencing guidelines.
Consecutive Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the sentencing court acted within its discretion by ordering the sentences to run consecutively, in line with RCW 9.94A.400(2) and (3).
Reasoning: RCW 9.94A.400(2) and (3) dictate that when a person commits a felony while under a sentence, the new term starts after prior sentences end, and subsequent sentences run consecutively unless ordered to run concurrently.
Equal Protection and Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the equal protection argument, explaining that different treatment of pre-SRA and post-SRA defendants is not inherently unequal when considering the context of unexpired terms.
Reasoning: A defendant with a pre-SRA conviction will always face a longer sentence than a post-SRA defendant, due to the lack of unexpired terms for the latter.
Inclusion of Prior Convictions in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the decision to exclude forgery convictions from Andrews' criminal history calculation, aligning with the dismissal under RCW 9.95.240.
Reasoning: The March 1970 conviction was dismissed under RCW 9.95.240, with the State acknowledging both forgeries were treated similarly.
Sentencing Within Standard Rangesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirmed that a sentence falling within the presumptive range of 31 to 41 months is not appealable under RCW 9.94A.210(1).
Reasoning: The State claimed that Andrews' sentence fell within the presumptive range of 31 to 41 months and was therefore not appealable.