State v. Ralls

Decision Date27 September 2022
Docket Number56530-7-II
PartiesSTATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. ANTHONY EUGENE RALLS, Appellant.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY EUGENE RALLS, Appellant.

No. 56530-7-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

September 27, 2022


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Worswick, J.

Anthony Ralls appeals his amended judgment and sentence following his conviction for first degree murder. Ralls argues that the trial court violated the excessive fines clause by ordering him to pay the $500 crime victim penalty assessment and by imposing supervision fees. In a statement of additional grounds for review, Ralls also argues that he is entitled to resentencing for the trial court to consider the mitigating qualities of his youth at the time of the crime. We disagree with Ralls's arguments and affirm but remand to the trial court to correct its scrivener's error and strike the supervision fees.

Facts

In 2014, a jury found Ralls guilty of first degree murder stemming from the 1988 killing of Bernard Houston. Ralls was 19 at the time of the murder. The trial court originally sentenced Ralls to 333 months confinement and imposed a total of $2,800 in legal financial obligations (LFOs).

1

In 2021, following the Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Blake,[1] the trial court held a resentencing hearing wherein the State and Ralls agreed that the court should correct Ralls's judgment and sentence to reflect a lower offender score and standard sentence range. Ralls also asked the trial court to consider his youthfulness at the time of the offense arguing, "[T]he case law . . . on youthfulness and brain development and childhood influences associated with that have developed quite a bit since [] Ralls was sentenced on this case and when the incident took place." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 6.

In its ruling on resentencing, the trial court considered Ralls's reduced offender score and the fact that he had no prior criminal history at the time of the offense. The trial court also acknowledged the mitigating factor of Ralls's youthfulness at the time of the offense. The trial court imposed 300 months of confinement, a standard range sentence.

Consistent with the Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Blazina, [2] the trial court also granted the State's motion to strike $2,300 of the legal financial obligations from Ralls's judgment and sentence, leaving only the mandatory $500 crime victim penalty assessment. The order correcting Ralls's judgment and sentence stated the court's intention to waive "all non-mandatory LFOs and interest." CP at 66. But the court did not strike boilerplate language relating to the terms of community custody that permitted the collection of community custody supervision fees.

Ralls appeals.

2

Analysis

Ralls argues that the trial court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT