State of Washington v. Maxwell Delvon Jones, 34038-4

Background

Maxwell Jones was convicted by bench trial of first-degree robbery; acquitted of second-degree assault. Sentenced to 171 months.
The State submitted a criminal-history worksheet showing numerous prior federal and state convictions; defense counsel signed the worksheet but noted Jones refused to sign and only disputed one conviction's classification (a 2012 conspiracy-to-possess offense).
The State calculated an offender score of 12 (reported as 9+), producing the standard range used by the court; defense counsel expressly told the court he was not disputing the 9+ calculation at sentencing.
On appeal Jones argued the offender score was miscalculated because some priors had washed out or constituted the same criminal conduct, and alternatively that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the score.
The Court analyzed each prior conviction (federal felon-in-possession counts, drug conspiracies, weapons and property offenses, robbery and attempted assault) and concluded none had washed out or were shown to be the same conduct; the proper total points yielded 12.
The court affirmed the sentence and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim because Jones failed to show any actual sentencing error or resulting prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether offender score was miscalculated (washout/same-conduct)	Jones: several class C felonies had washed out and some priors were the same criminal conduct, so points were improper	State: priors did not wash out and Jones did not timely raise same-conduct; State met burden or defendant admitted history	Court: No error — review of each prior shows washout not established; same-conduct claim not preserved for appeal
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to offender score	Jones: counsel should have challenged same-conduct and washout of four class C felonies	State: no demonstrable error existed, so no deficiency or prejudice	Court: No ineffective assistance — defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice
Whether defendant could challenge for the first time on appeal (Goodwin waiver issue)	Jones: sentencing error can be reviewed despite lack of timely objection	State: many issues involve factual determinations or discretionary matters not preserved	Held: Defendant must first demonstrate an actual sentencing error within the judgment and sentence; same-conduct is fact-bound and waived; washout is legal but no error shown
Sufficiency of evidence that instrument appeared to be a firearm (weapon enhancement)	Jones (SAG): the object was a cigarette lighter shaped like a gun, so no first-degree robbery with a deadly weapon	State: victim and detective testimony support that the object appeared to be a firearm	Court: Evidence sufficed that the object appeared to be a firearm; first-degree robbery finding stands

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moeurn, 170 Wn.2d 169 (de novo review of offender score calculations)
State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (limits on sentencing court reliance; must be admitted/acknowledged/proved)
State v. Mendoza, 165 Wn.2d 913 (State bears burden to prove priors; affirmative acknowledgment exception)
In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861 (defendant cannot agree to punishment beyond statutory authority; waiver analysis)
State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220 (defendant must show an actual error in judgment and sentence to invoke waiver exception)
State v. Wilson, 170 Wn.2d 682 (requirement to establish an error in fact occurred)
State v. Nitsch, 100 Wn. App. 512 (same-conduct determinations are factual and discretionary; not reviewable if not preserved)
State v. Foster, 140 Wn. App. 266 (ineffective-assistance claim fails if no apparent invalidity on face of judgment and sentence)