State Of Washington v. Jamil Alkitab Al Wali Mutazz, 48465-0

Background

Early morning owner left Lexus with keys inside at dry cleaner; employee saw a black man in a dark hoodie drive it away. Owner promptly reported the car stolen.
About 4 hours later Tacoma police located the Lexus; Officer Fredericks saw Mutazz in the driver’s seat, the car fled when officers activated lights, and a high-speed pursuit followed.
The Lexus was disabled by spike strips, damaged, abandoned in an alley; Mutazz ran on foot and was arrested nearby.
Mutazz testified he acquired the Lexus in a drug transaction, that a passenger gave it to him, and he fled because he was on DOC supervision and had been using/had drugs.
Jury convicted Mutazz of possession of a stolen vehicle, attempting to elude, and resisting arrest (acquitted of assault).
At sentencing the court imposed an exceptional sentence: rapid recidivism (offense occurred 11 days after jail release) and the "free crimes" aggravator (high offender score would leave offenses unpunished); total 100 months (consecutive terms).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did State prove Mutazz knew the vehicle was stolen?	State: possession + corroborating evidence (description match, flight, false story) suffices to prove knowledge.	Mutazz: only possession shown; ID uncertain; several hours passed; he fled for unrelated reasons (drug use, DOC supervision).	Affirmed. Enough circumstantial evidence (matching description, flight, implausible/fabricated explanation) to support guilty knowledge.
Rapid recidivism aggravator: Is recent confinement for DOC sanction ‘‘incarceration’’ under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(t)?	State: confinement for DOC supervision violation is incarceration; offense occurred shortly after release (11 days).	Mutazz: his recent confinement was a sanction for DOC supervision, not confinement for a new criminal conviction; therefore should not count.	Affirmed. ‘‘Incarceration’’ includes confinement for DOC supervision violations tied to felony; 11 days qualifies as "shortly after."
Free crimes aggravator: Does high offender score mean some current offenses would go unpunished?	State: Mutazz’s offender score (40+/20) and multiple current offenses meant a standard-range concurrent sentence would leave some offenses effectively unpunished.	Mutazz: challenged trial court’s finding that high offender score would cause free crimes.	Affirmed. Trial court permissibly found concurrent standard sentences would leave some crimes unpunished and imposed an exceptional sentence to punish each offense.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Farnsworth, 185 Wn.2d 768 (circumstantial evidence treated like direct evidence)
State v. Scoby, 117 Wn.2d 55 (possession plus slight corroboration can prove knowledge)
State v. Ladely, 82 Wn.2d 172 (false or inconsistent explanations support guilty knowledge)
State v. McDaniel, 155 Wn. App. 829 (flight can show consciousness of guilt)
State v. Williams, 159 Wn. App. 298 (rapid recidivism explained)
State v. Zigan, 166 Wn. App. 597 (short interval after release supports rapid recidivism)
State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2d 537 (use dictionary/plain meaning in statutory interpretation)
State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186 (consider statutory scheme and related provisions)
State v. Mehrabian, 308 P.3d 660 (confinement for supervision violation treated as confinement for felony in SRA context)
State v. Blair, 57 Wn. App. 512 (confinement for supervision violation counts as confinement under SRA)
State v. France, 176 Wn. App. 463 (free crimes aggravator framework)