State Of Washington, V Christopher S. Crocker
196 Wash. App. 730
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Christopher S. Crocker pleaded guilty (2014) to attempted elude and third-degree theft; sentencing required calculating his offender score.
- Crocker had multiple prior convictions, including a 2000 Oregon marijuana manufacturing conviction and a 2009 Oregon "offensive littering" conviction.
- The trial court ruled the 2009 Oregon littering conviction prevented the 2000 drug conviction from "washing out" under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) and therefore included the 2000 conviction in the offender score.
- Crocker appealed; a commissioner initially affirmed, but the panel granted review of whether the Oregon littering conviction could prevent washout.
- The court addressed whether an out-of-state conviction must be comparable to a Washington crime to interrupt the five-year washout, and whether a conviction comparable only to a Washington civil infraction qualifies as "any crime."
- The Court of Appeals reversed: comparability is required, and an out-of-state conviction comparable only to a Washington civil infraction does not interrupt the washout period; remanded to recalculate the offender score.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out-of-state conviction can interrupt RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) washout without comparability to a Washington crime | State: the Oregon conviction may prevent washout (no comparability requirement) | Crocker: comparability to a Washington crime is required to interrupt washout | Court: comparability analysis is required |
| Whether an out-of-state conviction that is only comparable to a Washington civil infraction qualifies as "any crime" that interrupts washout | State: it can interrupt washout | Crocker: civil infractions are not "crimes" under RCW 9A.04.040 and thus cannot interrupt washout | Court: civil infractions are not "any crime"; such out-of-state convictions do not interrupt washout |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rice, 180 Wn. App. 308 (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Weiand, 66 Wn. App. 29 (out-of-state convictions treated comparably to in-state offenses)
- State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815 (definition of washout five-year period)
- State v. Cameron, 80 Wn. App. 374 (treating out-of-state convictions as having in-state effect)
- State v. Morley, 134 Wn.2d 588 (including non-state convictions when comparable)