State v. Binder
| Decision Date | 24 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 51781-9,51781-9 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Kenneth BINDER, Appellant. |
Dennis DeFelice, Atty. at Law, Pasco, for appellant.
Curtis Ludwig, Benton County Pros. Darcy Scholts, Deputy, Kennewick, for respondent.
Kenneth Binder's appeal raises several issues regarding the computation of his sentence under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, RCW 9.94A. Most of appellant's contentions have been resolved by our recent decision in State v. Ammons, 105 Wash.2d 175, 713 P.2d 719 (1986). Consistent with that decision, and with the express language of RCW 9.94A.360(11), we now vacate appellant's 12- to 14-month sentence and remand for resentencing.
Appellant is presently incarcerated pursuant to a conviction for second degree burglary. Four of his prior convictions are for federal crimes: possessing an unregistered firearm, making a firearm, possession of firearm by a felon, and escape from custody. The weapons convictions were all entered on the same date in 1975, whereas the escape conviction was entered in 1979. Appellant also has a 1972 state court conviction for forgery and a 1979 conviction for possession of stolen property.
At appellant's sentencing hearing, the State presented documentary evidence of his prior convictions. Appellant did not deny that he was the person named in the documents. Instead, he took the position that the State had to prove the constitutional validity of the prior convictions. (Each of the prior convictions is based on a plea of guilty.) In an offer of proof, defense counsel said that, if asked, appellant would testify that he had not been specifically advised of his constitutional rights before entering any of his pleas. Appellant also argued that the federal weapons violations did not constitute a felony under state law and therefore could not be treated as a prior conviction under the Sentencing Reform Act.
The trial court rejected both of appellant's arguments and held that the State had proven each of the prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence. Because appellant's sentences for the three weapons convictions ran concurrently, the trial court properly treated these prior convictions as a single conviction under RCW 9.94A.360. The court apparently did not notice, however, that the federal escape sentence also ran concurrently. The State now concedes that all four federal convictions should count as only one prior conviction. 1
Since only one federal conviction may be counted, it is unnecessary to address appellant's contention that federal weapons convictions can never be treated as prior convictions: Appellant would have the same offender score, and thus the same standard range sentence, even if the weapon convictions are disregarded. See RCW 9.94A.360(11) (); RCW 9.94A.330 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Coats
...need not prove the constitutional validity of prior guilty pleas, though a facially invalid plea cannot be used.” State v. Binder, 106 Wash.2d 417, 419, 721 P.2d 967 (1986) (emphasis added). Two years later, we used the term in a personal restraint petition decision, again in the context of......
-
State v. Randle
...identity is sufficiently established unless the defendant declares under oath that he is not the person named. State v. Binder, 106 Wash.2d 417, 419, 721 P.2d 967 (1986) (citing Ammons ). No direct allegation was made at sentencing, nor is one urged on appeal, that Randle is not the same pe......
-
State v. Hartley
...under the revised statute. The case sub judice, however, is controlled by the antecedent statute, 9.94A.360(11).2 In State v. Binder, 106 Wash.2d 417, 721 P.2d 967 (1986), the Washington Supreme Court held that the defendnant's prior convictions should not have been treated separately under......
-
State v. Bembry
...identity is sufficiently established unless the defendant declares under oath that he is not the person named. State v. Binder, 106 Wash.2d 417, 419, 721 P.2d 967 (1986). Bembry does not allege that the State has not proved the existence of the Oregon conviction or that he is not the person......