State Of Washington, V Jordan Wayne Pittman
49232-6
Wash. Ct. App.Oct 31, 2017Background
- Between Jan–May 2015, 19-year-old Jordan Pittman sexually abused his nieces (ages 6–7); one victim reported penetration with a vibrating device and later bleeding. Pittman also had photos of the girls’ genital areas on his phone.
- Pittman was convicted after a bench trial of one count of first‑degree rape of a child and one count of second‑degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court found he used a position of trust and that the possession offense was committed with sexual motivation.
- DOC PSI and a psychosexual evaluation described Pittman as a marginal candidate for community‑based treatment; DOC recommended an exceptional sentence.
- At sentencing victims and their family opposed a SSOSA; defense argued Pittman was amenable to community treatment and youthful. The court denied a SSOSA, imposed 155 months for rape and 29 months for possession plus a 12‑month sexual‑motivation enhancement (concurrent), totaling 167 months.
- The judgment and sentence inaccurately checked a box stating the parties stipulated to an exceptional sentence; the State conceded that was erroneous. The State also conceded the 12‑month sexual‑motivation enhancement on the possession count was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a SSOSA | State: denial appropriate based on PSI, expert report, victims’ views, and public safety | Pittman: court relied on impermissible grounds (comment that his thoughts/actions are "deep‑seated") | Denial affirmed; court permissibly relied on RCW 9.94A.670(4) factors (amenability, victim input, risk) and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the judgment incorrectly states Pittman stipulated to an exceptional sentence | State: N/A (concedes error) | Pittman: judgment incorrectly reflects agreement to exceptional sentence | Remand for correction as a scrivener’s error; no evidence Pittman stipulated |
| Whether a 12‑month sexual‑motivation enhancement was proper on possession count | State: N/A (concedes error) | Pittman: enhancement improper because possession is a sex offense and RCW 9.94A.835(1) bars sexual‑motivation allegations for sex offenses | Remand to strike the 12‑month sexual‑motivation enhancement; enhancement was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Onefrey v. State, 119 Wn.2d 572 (1992) (SSOSA decision is within trial court’s discretion)
- Rohrich v. State, 149 Wn.2d 647 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard; untenable grounds test)
- Rundquist v. State, 79 Wn. App. 786 (1995) (decision based on facts unsupported in record constitutes untenable grounds)
- Osman v. State, 157 Wn.2d 474 (2006) (disallowing categorical refusal of particular sentence or denial on impermissible basis)
- Frazier v. State, 84 Wn. App. 752 (1997) (sentencing court not limited to statutory SSOSA factors)
- Davis v. State, 160 Wn. App. 471 (2011) (defining scrivener’s error in judgment and sentence)
- Makekau v. State, 194 Wn. App. 407 (2016) (remedy for scrivener’s error is remand for correction)
- In re Personal Restraint of Mayer, 128 Wn. App. 694 (2005) (court may correct mistakes in judgments at any time)