State Of Washington v. Jacob Ivan Schmitt, & Prp Of Schmitt
196 Wash. App. 739
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jacob Schmitt pleaded guilty (Dec 2013 plea agreement) to two counts of first-degree theft and one count of second-degree burglary; sentencing followed in 2014–2015.
- Schmitt's relevant prior convictions included 1993 first-degree robbery, 1996 second-degree robbery, and a 2001 federal bank robbery (released April 2013 after long federal incarceration).
- At sentencing the State initially scored Schmitt's offender score high; the trial court deducted one point because it found no comparable Washington offense for the federal bank robbery.
- Schmitt argued on appeal and in a consolidated PRP that the 1996 robbery had "washed out" under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(b) because he was not "in the community" during his federal incarceration and thus the 2001 conviction should not interrupt the 10-year washout period.
- The court held the federal bank robbery interrupts the washout period under RCW 9.94A.525(3) (treating noncomparable federal felonies as class C equivalents), so the 1996 conviction did not wash out.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence except it reversed and remanded the discretionary legal financial obligations (attorney fees/defense costs) for an individualized ability-to-pay inquiry; it denied the PRP and waived appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schmitt) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1996 robbery "washes out" under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(b) | Time in federal prison after 2001 bank robbery should not count as interrupting washout because federal bank robbery has no comparable WA offense | RCW 9.94A.525(3) classifies noncomparable federal felonies as class C equivalents and thus interrupt washout | The 2001 federal bank robbery interrupts the 10-year washout; 1996 conviction did not wash out |
| Whether Schmitt's guilty plea was involuntary (induced by fear of third-strike exposure) | Plea was induced because Schmitt believed he faced a third-strike and would not have pleaded otherwise | Trial court correctly informed Schmitt of strike exposure; court's treatment of priors was proper | Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel re: offender-score/third-strike advice | Counsel failed to advise that Schmitt was not facing a third strike and miscalculated priors | Counsel properly negotiated plea, secured reduction in offender score, and advised correctly given law | No deficient performance or prejudice; claim fails |
| Imposition of discretionary LFOs without ability-to-pay inquiry | Court imposed attorney-fee/defense-cost LFOs without individualized inquiry into ability to pay | State did not contest appellate review; court must follow statutory/instructional law | Discretionary LFOs reversed and remanded for on-record individualized ability-to-pay inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815 (clarifies trigger and continuity clauses and washout interpretation)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Lavery, 154 Wn.2d 249 (holds federal bank robbery is not comparable to WA robbery)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (requires individualized on-the-record inquiry into ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Isadore, 151 Wn.2d 294 (plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (applies Strickland framework to ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1 (preservation and manifest constitutional error standard for withdrawing pleas)
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (discusses appellate costs and ability-to-pay considerations)