State v. Hall
| Decision Date | 06 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 17977-2-I,17977-2-I |
| Citation | 728 P.2d 616,45 Wn.App. 766 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Cecil Edward HALL, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Julie Kesler, Washington Appellate Defender, Seattle for Cecil Edward hall.
Michael Schwart, Deputy Pros. Atty., Deborah Phillips, Senior Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for State.
Defendant, Cecil Edward Hall, was convicted by a jury of robbery in the second degree. The trial court determined that Hall had an offender score of 4 and that the standard range for the offense was 15 to 20 months. Hall was sentenced to 20 months of total confinement. Hall appealed and sought accelerated review pursuant to RAP 18.15 contending that the trial court erred in calculating his offender score.
We initially note that although the sentence appears on its face to be within the presumptive sentencing range, the matter is appealable despite the prohibitions of RCW 9.94A.210(1) because "the very issue on review is the determination and application of the appropriate standard." State v. Andrews, 43 Wash.App. 49, 51, 715 P.2d 526 (1986). State v. Ammons, 105 Wash.2d 175, 182-83, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986). State v. Harris, 41 Wash.App. 561, 705 P.2d 280 (1985), 718 P.2d 796 (1986).
It is undisputed that defendant's criminal history includes: (1) a March 1, 1968, attempted burglary conviction (a Class C felony); (2) an August 2, 1972, aggravated battery conviction (Class B felony); and (3) a June 3, 1985, attempted theft conviction (a Class C felony). The only issue raised on appeal is whether the 1968 Class C felony had "washed out" because the appellant did not commit any felonies from 1972 to 1985. The trial court held that former RCW 9.94A.360(12) resulted in a Class C felony being "washed out" only if the defendant had no felony convictions during the five years immediately following the Class C felony in question.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), the presumptive sentencing range is determined by considering the offense seriousness score and the defendant's offender score. Former RCW 9.94A.370. Computation of the offender score is governed by former RCW 9.94A.360. Subsection 12 provides:
Class C prior felony convictions ... are not included if the offender has spent five years in the community and has not been convicted of any felonies since the last date of release from confinement pursuant to a felony conviction (including full-time residential treatment), if any, or entry of judgment and sentence.
RCW 9.94A.360(12) has been referred to as the "wash out" provision of the SRA.
The statute is ambiguous as it is capable of two interpretations. Adams v. Department of Social & Health Serv., 38 Wash.App. 13, 683 P.2d 1133 (1984). It could be construed as requiring the defendant's 5-year "crime-free" period to immediately follow the Class C felony in question. Alternatively, the statute could be interpreted to mean that any 5-year "crime-free" period following a Class C felony acts to wash out the offense. "In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the rule of lenity requires us to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the defendant." State v. Welty, 44 Wash.App. 281, 283, 726 P.2d 472 (1986); State v. Hartley, 41 Wash.App. 669, 673, 705 P.2d 821, rev. denied, 104 Wash.2d 1028 (1985). As the Washington State Supreme Court held in State v. Workman, 90 Wash.2d 443, 454, 584 P.2d 382 (1978), it is "the policy of the court not to interpret a criminal statute so as to increase the penalty imposed, absent clear evidence of legislative intent to do so...."
We have been presented with no evidence of the legislature's intent prior to the enactment of former RCW 9.94A.360(12). However, in an October 4, 1985 meeting of the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the commission recognized that the provision was ambiguous and recommended "that the full period of crime-free behavior must be met, but the time period need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schwartz
...RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) requires only that a defendant spend five consecutive crime-free years in the community. State v. Hall, 45 Wash. App. 766, 769, 728 P.2d 616 (1986). The washout period is not required to immediately follow the prior conviction. See id. The parties do not appear to disput......
-
State of Wash. v. ERVIN
...convicted, this crime implicated the continuity/interruption clause, effectively resetting the five-year clock. See State v. Hall, 45 Wash.App. 766, 769, 728 P.2d 616 (1986). Both sides also agree that Ervin did not commit any crime resulting in a conviction between April 15, 1999, and July......
-
State v. Schwartz
...as it follows the date of entry of judgment and the last date of release from confinement for the prior offense. State v. Hall, 45 Wash. App. 766, 768, 728 P.2d 616 (1986). Both are true of the 1997 forgery conviction. That conviction clearly washed out.Whether the 2001 failure to register ......
-
State v. Johnson, 18525-0-I
...to "wash out" and not be included as part of a defendant's criminal history for sentencing purposes under the SRA. State v. Hall, 45 Wash.App. 766, 769, 728 P.2d 616 (1986). However, the SRA does not indicate whether a court should use the current classification of a previously unclassified......