State v. David
| Decision Date | 14 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 49075-3-I.,49075-3-I. |
| Citation | 122 P.3d 764,130 Wn. App. 232 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Victor Matthew DAVID, Appellant. |
Oliver Ross Davis, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
Seth Aaron Fine, David Frederick Thiele, Mary Kathleen Webber, Snohomish County Prosecutors Office, Everett, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 This case was remanded to us following our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hughes.1 We withdraw the former unpublished section F of State v. David2 relating to the exceptional sentence and replace it with this published section C.
C. Exceptional Sentence
¶ 2 David also contends that the trial court erred in imposing an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535.3 Recently, the Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington4 held unconstitutional an exceptional sentence that is based on facts (other than prior convictions) not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Blakely does not invalidate RCW 9.94A.535 on its face, but it does provide for an as-applied challenge.5
¶ 3 None of the six aggravating factors used to lengthen David's sentence was found by the jury, and none was a prior conviction. The exceptional sentence was improper in light of Blakely and is reversed.
¶ 4 The only remaining question is the appropriate sentencing procedure on remand. To uphold the exceptional sentence, a jury would need to be empanelled to make the appropriate findings of fact. In Hughes, our Supreme Court determined that only the Legislature may amend RCW 9.94A.535 to require this procedure.6 The Legislature recently did so, but whether the amendment applies retroactively has yet to be decided.
¶ 5 We affirm the judgment and remand for resentencing.
3. RCW 9.94A.535 allows the court to "impose a sentence outside the standard sentence range for an offense if it finds, considering the purpose of this chapter, that there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Prado
...witness instruction for an abuse of discretion. State v. David, 118 Wn. App. 61, 67, 74 P.3d 686 (2003), modified on remand, 130 Wn. App. 232, 122 P.3d 764 (2005). The trial court here addressed the Montgomery factors, finding that Ms. Torres was "peculiarly available" to Mr. Prado because ......
-
State v. Salvador
... ... Id. at 158, 34 P.3d 1218 (quoting Martinez-Salazar , 528 U.S. at 315, 120 S.Ct. 774 ). 23 In support of his argument, Pea Salvador cites two decisions of this court that rely on Fire : State v. Gonzales , 111 Wash. App. 276, 45 P.3d 205 (2002), and State v. David , 118 Wash. App. 61, 74 P.3d 686 (2003), modified on remand on other grounds , 130 Wash. App. 232, 122 P.3d 764 (2005). In Gonzales , we determined that the trial court had erred in denying a for-cause challenge, resulting in the seating of a biased juror. 111 Wash. App. at 28283, 45 P.3d 205 ... ...
-
State v. Talbott
... ... 27 Within Division One, different panels have reached different conclusions. Shortly after Fire and Clark were decided, some cases relied on Fire without mentioning Clark ... E.g. , State v. Gonzales , 111 Wash. App. 276, 282, 45 P.3d 205 (2002) ; State v. David , 118 Wash. App. 61, 68, 74 P.3d 686 (2003), modified on remand , 130 Wash. App. 232, 122 P.3d 764 (2005). However, in 2021, Division One explicitly addressed the tension between Fire and Clark in two opinions, which reached two different conclusions. 28 First, in State v. Gebremariam , ... ...
-
State v. Prado
... ... inference would not shift the burden of proof, and (4) the ... witness's testimony would be material and not cumulative ... We review the trial court's giving a missing witness ... instruction for an abuse of discretion. State v ... David, 118 Wn.App. 61, 67, 74 P.3d 686 (2003), ... modified on remand, 130 Wn.App. 232, 122 P.3d 764 ... (2005) ... The ... trial court here addressed the Montgomery factors, ... finding that Ms. Torres was "peculiarly available" ... to Mr. Prado because ... ...