State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. Aunary M. Luckett, Appellant-cross, 73721-0

Jacqueline Nelson obtained a domestic violence no-contact order prohibiting her son, Aunaray Luckett, from contacting her or coming within 150 feet of her home.
Police responded June 12, 2014 to reports of screaming and possible gunshots; they entered, contacted Nelson, and arrested Luckett.
The State charged Luckett with violating the no-contact order, with an aggravator (community custody) and elevation to a felony based on two prior no-contact violations; a jury convicted.
The standard range sentencing recommendation was 33–43 months; the court imposed 43 months.
Luckett sought an exceptional downward sentence to 12 months + 1 day, arguing Nelson invited contact and Luckett’s low mental functioning contributed; a court-ordered mental health evaluation found no competency or mental health impairment (other than self-reported need for substance treatment).
The trial judge considered the request but declined to impose an exceptional downward sentence, explaining he had considered Nelson’s statement but concluded an exceptional sentence was not appropriate in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to consider an exceptional downward sentence	Luckett: court failed to actually consider his request and therefore abused discretion	State: court considered the request and reasonably declined to impose an exceptional sentence	Court held the judge did consider the request and did not abuse discretion in imposing a standard-range sentence

State v. Graham, 181 Wn.2d 878, 337 P.3d 319 (Washington 2014) (describing the Sentencing Reform Act standard-range rule)
State v. Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. App. 322, 944 P.2d 1104 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court must actually consider request for exceptional sentence; refusal to exercise discretion review standard)
State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 111 P.3d 1183 (Washington 2005) (failure to consider an exceptional sentence is reversible error)