State v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 55721-5-II |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CORY TAYLOR PRATT, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Cory Pratt appeals his sentence, arguing (1) the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA), (2) the SSOSA requirement that the defendant must have a close relationship with the victim violates the equal protection clause, and (3) the trial court erred in denying Pratt credit toward confinement for time served in community custody.
We disagree with all of Pratt's arguments and affirm the trial court.
Pratt was found guilty of child molestation in the first degree after a bench trial, and the court sentenced him to a SSOSA. The State appealed Pratt's SSOSA sentence arguing that he did not have the required statutory connection with the victim. State v. Pratt, 11 Wn.App. 2d 450, 452, 454 P.3d 875 (2019). We reversed the sentence, and our Supreme Court agreed. Pratt, 11 Wn.App. 2d at 453; State v. Pratt, 196 Wn.2d 849, 858-59, 479 P.3d 680 (2021). The Supreme Court summarized the facts as follows:
Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 851 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
At trial, the State introduced evidence that MB told an investigator that she had never met Pratt or Pratt's daughter until the party. The State also introduced evidence that Pratt told the investigator that he may have met MB's family years ago because his aunt and uncle have had "get-togethers" that included MB's parents, but he could not say with certainty if their children had also attended. 1 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Oct. 2 2017) at 37. Pratt explained that he did not interact with MB at the party and that the most interaction he had with MB was to hand her a skewer with marshmallows on it. When asked if he had any conversations with MB, Pratt replied "[n]ot really" but on the day after the party, she sat near him and he thinks he asked her name. 1 VRP (Oct. 2, 2017) at 37.
Several witnesses also testified to the relationship between MB and Pratt. Pratt's aunt said MB met Pratt but she did not know when. She added that she saw Pratt often because he always received invitations to parties. However, she did not know if Pratt and MB had "really talked to each other ever." 1 VRP (Oct. 2 2017) at 54. Pratt's aunt told the court that MB's parents may have said "hi and bye" to Pratt but otherwise she did not think they ever had a conversation with each other. 1 VRP (Oct. 2 2017) at 54.
MB's mother testified that she did not know Pratt, never interacted with him, never had a conversation with him, and never met him. And, she further stated that they had never been at a gathering at the same time, and that Pratt had never met her husband. MB's father also testified that he had never had any interaction with Pratt and that neither he nor MB had ever met or spoken to Pratt.
Pratt testified that he remembered meeting MB's parents at a specific party before the alleged incident, although he did not remember meeting MB before the sleepover. He also testified that he knew MB's first name but not her last.
The trial court concluded that Pratt established a relationship with MB sufficient to satisfy the statute and sentenced Pratt to a SSOSA. The State appealed Pratt's sentence.
We reversed the trial court, concluding that Pratt was ineligible for SSOSA because he did not have an established relationship with, or connection to, MB. Pratt, 11 Wn.App. 2d at 462. Our Supreme Court affirmed our decision and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 851.
The trial court held a resentencing hearing and took evidence to determine whether Pratt had a connection or relationship with MB. At the hearing, Pratt presented testimony from three witnesses to establish his relationship with MB: Troy Howington, Pamela Howington, and himself.
Troy Howington, Pratt's uncle, testified that Pratt and MB had both been present at family functions around 2006 and 2007.[2] He testified that Pratt had been to MB's parents' house at least twice for family events. He also recalled that Pratt and MB were both present during family events, weddings, Fourth of July celebrations, spring break, Thanksgiving, and birthday parties. Some of these events took place at MB's grandmother's house.
Pamela Howington, MB's grandmother and Troy Howington's mother, testified that Pratt, MB, and MB's parents attended many family gatherings together on at least three occasions. And Pratt testified that he knew MB's grandmother and her parents. None of the witnesses testified as to conversations between Pratt and MB, or any other interaction between the two prior to the incident.
The trial court did not enter written findings of fact, but stated that the relationship between MB and Pratt was that of "mere acquaintance[s]," and that they have had "brief passings." 1 VRP (Apr. 6, 2021) at 53. Thus, it concluded that Pratt was ineligible for SSOSA, and it imposed an indeterminate life sentence with a standard range minimum sentence of 57 months.
Prior to the verdict in 2016, Pratt was in jail for 2 days before posting bail. After the verdict in 2017, Pratt was taken into custody and his request for bail pending appeal was denied. Pratt served one year in jail, then remained on community custody up until his resentencing hearing. At the resentencing hearing, Pratt argued that he should receive credit for time served to include not only the time he spent in jail, but the time he spent on community custody, for a total of 1,276 days.
Although the trial court stated that Pratt should not receive credit for time served on community custody, the court did not calculate credit for time served on the judgment and sentence. The court ultimately asked the prosecutor if he wanted the court to strike the 361 days credit for times served and "just have [Department of corrections] calculate?" 1 VRP (Apr. 6, 2021) at 82. Both the prosecutor and Pratt's counsel agreed. The judgment and sentence reads:
(d) Credit for Time Served: The defendant shall receive credit for eligible time served prior to sentencing if that confinement was solely under this cause number. RCW 9.94A.505. The jail shall compute time served.
Clerk's Papers (Mar. 28, 2018) at 104.
Pratt appeals his sentence.
Pratt argues that the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for SSOSA. We disagree.
Once a defendant has been convicted of a sex offense, the trial court has the discretion to impose a SSOSA sentence if he meets the statutory criteria. Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 862; RCW 9.94A.670. A defendant is eligible for SSOSA if he can show "an established relationship with, or connection to, the victim such that the sole connection with the victim was not the commission of the crime." RCW 9.94A.670(2)(e). An established relationship or connection requires that the defendant and victim have "a direct connection between one another, rather than mere acquaintances who happen to share any number of overlapping colleagues, friends, or relatives." Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 858.
This is because SSOSA's purpose is to apply in "circumstances where a victim would be reluctant to report abuse and unwilling to participate in prosecution without the promise of a shortened sentence and treatment for an offender." Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 857-58. Thus, "SSOSA is limited to circumstances in which abuse is likely to go underreported, such as where an abuser has a protective, caretaking, or intimate association with their victim." Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 858. SSOSA eligibility is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Landsiedel, 165 Wn.App. 886, 889, 269 P.3d 347 (2012).
Here our Supreme Court concluded that Pratt did not have the required relationship or connection with MB so as to make him eligible for SSOSA. Pratt, 196 Wn.2d at 858-59. Nothing in the additional evidence adduced at the resentencing hearing changes this conclusion. MB told an investigator that she had never met Pratt or his daughter until the day of the incident nor has she ever had a conversation with him. Witnesses testified that Pratt and MB attended multiple events and gatherings together, but none of them testified as to any sort of relationship or direct connection between MB and Pratt. Pratt knew MB's parents and had been to MB's grandmother's house on a few occasions. None of the testimony established that MB and Pratt were more than acquaintances who happen to share overlapping friends and relatives. The evidence introduced simply reaffirmed that Pratt and MB have nothing more than family in common and...
To continue reading
Request your trial