State Of Washington v. Binh Thai Tran
73913-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Appellant Binh Thai Tran pleaded guilty to one count of indecent liberties by forcible compulsion and sought a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) at sentencing.
- Victim J.V.T. supported granting a SSOSA; defense evaluator Norman Glassman recommended SSOSA based on a sexual deviancy evaluation.
- The Department of Corrections recommended denial of SSOSA.
- The trial court denied SSOSA, concluding Tran was not amenable to treatment based on the evaluation’s personality findings and Tran’s demeanor/attitude at sentencing, and imposed an 82-month standard-range sentence.
- Tran appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to comply with RCW 9.94A.670(4) by not considering or making findings about the victim’s opinion, and (2) the court erred in finding Tran not amenable to treatment.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and also addressed appellate costs (Tran had been found indigent and appointed counsel at trial court).
Issues
| Issue | Tran's Argument | State/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of appellate review | Tran argued statutory-compliance error is reviewable despite standard-range sentence | State argued Tran failed to preserve the issue | Court: Issue preserved and reviewable (procedural/sentencing method review allowed) |
| Compliance with RCW 9.94A.670(4) (victim opinion/findings) | Trial court failed to consider victim’s opinion and must enter written findings when declining SSOSA | Court: Statute requires written findings only if sentence imposed is contrary to victim’s opinion (i.e., when a treatment disposition is imposed contrary to victim) | Court: No statutory violation; no requirement to enter findings because court denied treatment (no treatment disposition imposed) |
| Amenability to treatment | Tran argued evaluator recommended SSOSA and thus court abused discretion in denying SSOSA | Court relied on evaluator’s personality observations and Tran’s attitude to conclude Tran was not amenable | Court: No abuse of discretion; record supports determination that Tran was not amenable to treatment |
| Appellate costs | Tran implicitly argued indigency continued | State did not press costs on appeal | Court: Indigency presumption stands; appellate costs denied to State |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333 (discusses appealability of standard range sentences and reviewable sentencing procedure)
- State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (appellate review available for legal errors or abuses of discretion in sentencing)
- State v. Sims, 171 Wn.2d 436 (standard of review for SSOSA denial is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Oliva, 117 Wn. App. 773 (trial court may deny SSOSA when record supports lack of amenability to treatment)
- State v. Fellers, 37 Wn. App. 613 (distinguishable; involved mandatory written findings for dispositional hearings under a different statute)
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (presumption that appellate indigency continues unless record shows otherwise)