State Of Washington v. Daniel Miller
48548-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Miller pleaded guilty to three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; sentencing was continued.
- Before sentencing on the firearm charges, Miller pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
- The trial court sentenced both the firearm and controlled substance convictions on the same day.
- The prosecutor recommended concurrent sentences; the court ordered the controlled-substance sentence to run consecutive to the firearm sentences, citing perceived manipulation of the system.
- The court did not enter written findings of fact or conclusions of law supporting an exceptional (consecutive) sentence under RCW 9.94A.535.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose consecutive sentences for offenses sentenced the same day | State: RCW 9.94A.589(3) permits discretion to impose consecutive sentences when the conduct predated sentencing | Miller: Offenses were "current offenses" (sentenced same day), so RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) requires concurrent sentences unless exceptional sentencing procedures were followed | The offenses were current offenses; RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) controls and concurrent sentences were required absent RCW 9.94A.535 findings |
| Whether the court complied with the statutory exceptional-sentence requirements to impose consecutive terms | State: Court had discretion under subsection (3) to impose consecutive time | Miller: Court failed to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law showing substantial and compelling reasons under RCW 9.94A.535 | Court did not comply with RCW 9.94A.535; consecutive sentence was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conover, 183 Wn.2d 706, 355 P.3d 1093 (2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; legislative intent controls)
- State v. Young, 125 Wn.2d 688, 888 P.2d 142 (1995) (court looks to statutory language to determine intent)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501, 301 P.3d 450 (2013) (defines "current offense" functionally as convictions entered or sentenced on the same day)
- State v. Smith, 74 Wn. App. 844, 875 P.2d 1249 (1994) (discusses interplay of RCW 9.94A.589 subsections regarding consecutive sentencing)
Conclusion: The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences without the written findings required for an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535.