State Of Washington v. Douglas Ross White, 74874-2

Background

Douglas R. White, a trainee appraiser, used his mentor Tom Reed’s electronic signature and license number to produce appraisal reports and collect payment from clients during 2007–2012.
White performed appraisals without a certified license, was paid $400–$800 per appraisal, and advertised work under Reed’s name; Reed had been licensed and later laid off employees.
White pleaded guilty (straight plea, no stipulated facts) to 28 counts of second-degree identity theft and 27 counts of mortgage fraud covering conduct from May 16, 2007 to August 30, 2012.
At sentencing the trial court held a restitution hearing and ordered White to repay (a) clients who paid for appraisals they believed were certified and (b) Reed for monies White received using Reed’s credentials.
White appealed: challenging sufficiency of evidence for restitution, arguing a jury should decide restitution amounts, and claiming counts 45–55 were time-barred by the statute of limitations; he also raised ineffective assistance and alleged improper prosecutor-judge relationship in an additional grounds statement.

Issues

Issue	White's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for restitution	Restitution lacks adequate proof of loss; some borrowers suffered no loss because refinancing/mortgages were obtained and appraisals may have been accurate	Victims did not receive the certified appraisal they paid for; payments and White’s enrichment provide a causal nexus to his crimes	Affirmed — court found restitution supported: clients didn’t get what they purchased and Reed is entitled to monies White received when reports purportedly went to Reed’s firm
Jury determination of restitution amount	Sixth Amendment / state constitution require jury to decide restitution amount	Washington precedent (Kinneman) allows judge to determine restitution; Supreme Court precedent extending Apprendi does not apply to restitution scheme	Affirmed — no jury right to determine restitution amounts under existing Washington law
Counts 45–55 barred by statute of limitations	These counts involve acts from 2008–2009; State filed amended information in 2015, beyond five-year window; actual discovery occurred earlier (2010) so limitations expired	RCW allows prosecution within three years of actual discovery; record shows State’s actual discovery of those specific incidents occurred later during multi-year investigation	Affirmed — defendant failed to show actual discovery occurred more than three years before charging; statute of limitations does not bar these counts
Ineffective assistance / improper prosecutor-judge relationship (additional grounds)	Counsel ineffective for not raising statute-of-limitations on all counts; judge/prosecutor had improper prior relationship	Statute-of-limitations argument would fail on merits; record contains no evidence of an improper relationship	Denied — no ineffective assistance shown because limitations defense fails; no evidence supports alleged improper relationship

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 119 Wn.2d 385 (Washington 1992) (discusses trial court authority to order restitution)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (Washington 2005) (rejects jury right to determine restitution amount)
State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675 (Washington 1999) (standards for abuse of discretion in restitution)
State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (Washington 2008) (restitution limited to losses causally connected to crimes)
State v. Tobin, 161 Wn.2d 517 (Washington 2007) (restitution and sentencing principles)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (factual findings that increase punishment beyond statutory maximum require proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2012) (Apprendi principles applied to criminal fines)