Personal Restraint Petition Of Ronald L Brown
74494-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Ronald L. Brown pleaded guilty in King County (1996) to two child sex offenses (Feb–Jul 1993) and in Snohomish County (1997) to three counts of rape of a child (Nov 1994–Oct 1995). Sentences included terms of confinement and community placement.
- The Snohomish County court (nunc pro tunc) and at sentencing expressly ordered the Snohomish sentence to run consecutively to the King County sentence.
- Each trial court imposed a two-year community placement term under former RCW 9.94A.120(8)(b) (statute in effect when offenses occurred).
- DOC released Brown from confinement in January 2016 and is administering the two community placement terms consecutively (total four years).
- Brown filed a personal restraint petition arguing DOC improperly runs community placement consecutively; he also contended the 2009 SRA amendment or constitutional principles require reducing his placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC may run two community placement terms consecutively | Brown: DOC cannot require four years; community placement max is 2 years | DOC: Sentences (including placement) were imposed consecutively by court; DOC follows that order | Held: DOC properly runs two discrete 2-year community placement terms consecutively |
| Whether Brown is in community placement or community supervision | Brown: Conditions make it community supervision (max 2 years) | DOC: Courts sentenced to community placement; statutory conditions do not convert the label | Held: He was sentenced to community placement under former statute; conditions do not transform it into community supervision |
| Whether adding community placement exceeded statutory maximum for offenses | Brown: Adding placement to confinement exceeded maximum | DOC: Statutory maximum (life) not exceeded; placement required by statute | Held: No statutory-maximum violation; placement did not exceed life maximum |
| Whether 2009 SRA amendment or retroactivity reduces placement | Brown: 2009 amendment should apply to reduce term | DOC: RCW 9.94A.345 requires applying law in effect at offense; 2009 amendment not applicable | Held: 2009 amendment inapplicable; sentencing governed by law at time of offenses |
| Whether consecutive placement violates ex post facto or requires constitutional avoidance | Brown: Running placements consecutively increases punishment/ex post facto; constitutional avoidance should reduce term | DOC: No retroactive law change; sentence unchanged from court's original order | Held: No ex post facto violation and no basis for constitutional-avoidance reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138 (discussing standards for unlawful restraint)
- In re Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802 (standard for PRP relief—constitutional vs. nonconstitutional error)
- In re Long, 117 Wn.2d 292 (sentencing judge discretion to order consecutive sentences)
- State v. Grayson, 130 Wn. App. 782 (judge cannot impose hybrid concurrent/consecutive sentence)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (statutory maximum concept for Apprendi/Blakely analysis)
- In re Flint, 174 Wn.2d 539 (ex post facto analysis in sentencing context)
- State v. Coombes, 191 Wn. App. 241 (outlining two-prong ex post facto test)
- Utter v. Building Indus. Ass'n of Wash., 182 Wn.2d 398 (doctrine of constitutional avoidance)