State Of Washington v. Michael Todd Fernandez
74205-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Michael Fernandez, serving sentences for cocaine possession and identity theft, failed to return from a three-hour work-release pass and was later arrested; original escape charge reduced to second-degree escape by plea, with offender score 6.
- Presumptive standard range for second-degree escape with his offender score was 22–29 months; State and defense had agreed to 22 months.
- Trial court expressed concern about treating nonviolent, substance-addicted offenders as "warehoused," and imposed a downward exceptional sentence of 30 days.
- Trial court’s written findings identified three substantial and compelling reasons: (1) the escape was nonviolent and did not endanger the facility or persons, (2) underlying offenses were nonviolent, and (3) Fernandez lost good-time credits and future work-release eligibility.
- State appealed, arguing the reasons were improper because they were factors the legislature had already considered in setting the standard range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonviolence of the escape (no danger to facility/people) is a proper mitigating factor for downward departure | State: nonviolence is accounted for in the legislature's seriousness ranking and cannot support mitigation | Fernandez: lack of violence distinguishes this escape from more serious escapes and justifies mitigation | Court: Improper — legislature already considered nonviolence in setting seriousness level for escape; cannot be a mitigating factor |
| Whether the nonviolence of the prior offenses (identity theft, possession) justifies mitigation | State: criminal history and offense seriousness are already included in standard range calculation | Fernandez: prior nonviolent convictions show lower culpability | Court: Improper — criminal history is a component of presumptive range; cannot be mitigating |
| Whether loss of good-time credits and work-release eligibility due to escape is a proper mitigating factor | State: institutional consequences are not proper mitigating factors | Fernandez: those collateral consequences reduce additional punishment needed | Court: Improper — prior Washington precedent rejects loss of good time or institutional sanctions as mitigation |
| Whether defendant’s substance addiction/treatment needs justify mitigation | Fernandez (at argument): addiction driving criminal behavior can be mitigating (cites O'Dell) | State: record lacks sufficient, concrete findings of addiction or treatment need; not in written findings | Court: Not sustained — oral remarks insufficient and record lacks factual support to affirm on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85 (trial courts generally must impose standard-range sentence; appellate review de novo)
- State v. Ha'mim, 132 Wn.2d 834 (two-part test for whether factor supports exceptional sentence)
- State v. Alexander, 125 Wn.2d 717 (factors considered by legislature cannot justify departure)
- State v. Fowler, 145 Wn.2d 400 (lack of criminal history or nonviolence not mitigating because encompassed by guidelines)
- State v. Calvert, 79 Wn. App. 569 (nonviolence of offense not a proper mitigating factor)
- State v. Akin, 77 Wn. App. 575 (loss of good time and institutional sanctions are not proper mitigating factors)
- State v. O'Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (personal characteristics like addiction may be mitigating when supported by record)