State Of Washington, V Edward Junior Pinkney, Iii
47859-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Appellant Edward J. Pinkney III was convicted of a felony violation of a post-conviction no-contact order designated as domestic violence (VNCO-DV) and of bail jumping.
- At sentencing defense counsel stipulated to offender scores of 7 for VNCO-DV and 5 for bail jumping; the court accepted those scores and imposed a prison-based DOSA with 27.75 months custody and 27.75 months community custody.
- The offender score dispute centered on which prior convictions counted and which "washed out" under RCW 9.94A.525 (class C priors wash out after 5 crime-free years; class B priors after 10).
- Pinkney contended three priors (including a 2000 conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance) washed out, reducing scores by one point for each current count.
- The State and court treated the 2000 conspiracy as a class B felony (because the object offense was delivery of a Schedule II narcotic punishable up to 10 years), so it did not wash out; the court therefore counted it in both offender scores.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VNCO-DV offender score was miscalculated | Pinkney: score should be 6; three priors washed out including 2000 conspiracy | State: 2000 conspiracy is class B and does not wash out, so score is 7 | Offender score 7 affirmed |
| Whether the bail-jumping offender score was miscalculated | Pinkney: score should be 4 excluding the 2000 conspiracy | State: same counting as for VNCO-DV yields score 5 | Offender score 5 affirmed |
| Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to scores | Pinkney: counsel erred in stipulating to incorrect scores | State: stipulation not ineffective where scores were correct; no prejudice shown | Ineffective-assistance claim denied |
| Whether the SAG raises any cognizable error | Pinkney: reiterates offender-score challenges pro se | State/Court: no new meritorious error shown | SAG rejected; disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 185 Wn. App. 680 (App. 2015) (offender-score calculations reviewed de novo and three-step counting analysis)
- State v. Moeurn, 170 Wn.2d 169 (2009) (describing the three-step offender-score calculation process)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (applying Strickland in Washington; defendant must show both deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61 (1996) (failure to establish either prong defeats ineffective-assistance claim)