State Of Washington, V. Anastasis Mourelatos
82535-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- Multiple domestic-violence no-contact orders (NCOs) barred Anastasis Mourelatos from contacting his ex‑girlfriend; he repeatedly violated those NCOs.
- Mourelatos pleaded guilty to one count of felony harassment and three gross‑misdemeanor counts for violating a domestic‑violence NCO.
- He requested a prison‑based Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA), asserting his NCO violations were driven by substance abuse.
- The State opposed DOSA, arguing there was no sufficient nexus between the offenses and substance abuse and noting the victim’s expressed fear of a reduced sentence.
- At sentencing the court emphasized prior NCO violations, a recorded threat during the victim’s 911 call, and Mourelatos’s combative behavior, found him a community safety risk, acknowledged but rejected a sufficient nexus to substance abuse, denied DOSA, and imposed 48 months’ imprisonment.
- Mourelatos appealed, arguing the court failed to consider the statutory eligibility criteria and relied on impermissible grounds; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mourelatos) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court failed to consider RCW 9.94A.660 statutory eligibility criteria before denying DOSA | Court ignored/failed to properly apply the statutory criteria; eligibility entitles consideration | Eligibility does not automatically entitle DOSA; court may consider additional factors in deciding appropriateness | Court held eligibility ≠ automatic DOSA; record shows the court considered the request and permissibly denied it |
| Whether the court relied on impermissible grounds (prior NCO violations, impulsive/combative behavior) in denying DOSA | Those considerations were improper and required reversal | Repeated violations and defendant behavior are relevant to community safety and appropriateness of DOSA | Court held such factors are permissible and relevant; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court improperly relied on the victim’s personal wishes/fear in denying DOSA | Victim’s preference should not determine DOSA eligibility | Victim impact statements are allowed and courts may weigh victim safety concerns when assessing community risk | Court held victim input and safety concerns are proper factors to consider |
| Whether the court erred in finding an insufficient nexus between substance abuse and the crimes | Substance abuse and need for treatment show nexus and justify DOSA | A demonstrated nexus is required for DOSA to be appropriate; need for treatment alone does not mandate DOSA | Court held the record did not show a sufficient nexus; denial of DOSA was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hender, 180 Wn. App. 895, 324 P.3d 780 (2014) (sentencing court has discretion to determine DOSA eligibility and appropriateness)
- State v. Williams, 199 Wn. App. 99, 398 P.3d 1150 (2017) (abuse of discretion occurs when court categorically refuses to consider DOSA or denies on impermissible bases)
- State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 111 P.3d 1183 (2005) (DOSA’s purpose is treatment; defendants are entitled to have alternatives actually considered)
- State v. Smith, 142 Wn. App. 122, 173 P.3d 973 (2007) (eligibility under statute does not automatically result in DOSA; court must still assess appropriateness)
- State v. Barton, 121 Wn. App. 792, 90 P.3d 1138 (2004) (court must determine whether an alternative sentence is appropriate)
- State v. Lemke, 7 Wn. App. 2d 23, 434 P.3d 551 (2018) (denial of DOSA based on impermissible personal animus is an abuse of discretion)