State of Washington v. Manuel Rodriguez-Flores, 33311-6

Background

Manuel Rodriguez‑Flores was convicted of three counts of delivering methamphetamine (Oct. 14, 16, 20, 2014) and one count of possession with intent to deliver (Jan. 25, 2015).
The State alleged each delivery occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop; the defense stipulated at trial that the deliveries occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.
The jury returned special verdicts finding the deliveries occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop designated by a school district.
At sentencing the court applied three school‑bus‑stop enhancements consecutive to the base sentence and to each other, producing a high‑end standard range sentence of 132 months (State recommended 100 months).
The judge commented that Rodriguez‑Flores had rejected a plea offer and suggested lack of remorse; the court imposed 132 months and $2,050 in legal financial obligations (LFOs).
Rodriguez‑Flores appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence for the enhancements, consecutive application of enhancements, sentencing as punishment for going to trial, and LFOs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez‑Flores)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for school‑bus‑stop findings	The stipulation and instruction allowed jurors to find the enhancements; evidence and inferences support findings	Stipulation and instruction did not supply proof of bus seating capacity or that stops were designated by the school district; therefore findings insufficient	Affirmed: the defense stipulation that acts occurred within 1,000 feet permitted jurors to infer the stops were "school bus" stops designated by district; a rational juror could find enhancement facts beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether school‑bus enhancements must run consecutively to each other	Conceded on appeal that Conover controls and enhancements should not be stacked	Enhancements improperly ran consecutively to each other; Conover requires they be consecutive to the drug sentence but not to each other	Remanded for resentencing to correct consecutive/concurrent calculation in line with State v. Conover
Whether sentence punished defendant for exercising right to jury trial	Court argued sentence within standard range and should stand	Judge’s remarks suggested punishment for rejecting a plea and proceeding to trial; this chills right to jury trial	Remanded for resentencing (though not before a different judge); court cautioned to avoid implication of penalizing the exercise of trial rights
Legal financial obligations (LFOs) and ability to pay inquiry	No defense claim preserved at trial; mandatory LFOs generally sustained by precedent	Trial court imposed discretionary LFOs without Blazina inquiry and failed to consider ability to pay	Remanded: trial court must conduct Blazina ability‑to‑pay inquiry at resentencing; preserve any further challenges at that time

Key Cases Cited

State v. Conover, 183 Wn.2d 706 (Wash. 2015) (school‑bus‑stop enhancement is consecutive to the underlying drug sentence but enhancements do not stack upon each other)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (sentencing court must consider defendant’s ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
State v. Humphries, 181 Wn.2d 708 (Wash. 2014) (a stipulation to an element waives the right to jury proof on that element)
State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (Wash. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474 (Wash. 2006) (a standard‑range sentence is appealable when constitutional requirements are implicated)
United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1968) (impermissible penalization for exercising right to jury trial)