State Of Washington v. Michael Murray, 74422-4

Murray released from jail February 17, 2015; within weeks (March 4, 5, 9, 2015) he exposed himself to three individuals in Seattle venues.
Trial charged Murray with three counts of indecent exposure; State alleged sexual motivation and rapid recidivism as aggravating factors.
Jury convicted Murray on all counts, finding both aggravating factors met for each offense.
Standard sentence range for the offenses was 0–12 months; the State sought an exceptional sentence based on sexual motivation and rapid recidivism.
At sentencing, the court imposed a 36-month exceptional sentence, reflecting those aggravating factors, and Murray appealed.
Murray argued brain injury and cognitive deficits warranted consideration and potentially reduced punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the exceptional sentence is proper given aggravating factors.	Murray (State) contends factors justify departure.	Murray contends factors insufficient or vague.	Yes; factors support exceptional sentence.
Whether sexual motivation applies to indecent exposure as an aggravator.	State asserts sexual motivation permissible for non-inherently sexual offenses.	Murray argues indecent exposure inherently sexual; no separate sexual motivation standard.	Sexual motivation supports the exceptional sentence; it is not inherent to the offense.
Whether rapid recidivism supports the sentence given timing after release.	State asserts offenses occurred shortly after release.	Murray argues timing does not show disdain for law due to medical/mental state.	Yes; the offenses occurred within weeks of release, supporting rapid recidivism.
Whether the rapid recidivism or other aggravators are unconstitutionally vague post Johnson v. United States.	State relies on precedent; vagueness challenge rejected.	Murray claims vagueness under Johnson.	Rapid recidivism not unconstitutionally vague; valid aggravator.
Whether the sentence is clearly excessive given brain injury.	Murray contends sentence shocks conscience due to cognitive impairment.	State argues protection of public with substantial sentence warranted.	Not clearly excessive; reasonable accuracy under record.

State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85 (Wash. 2005) (establishes three-prong vs. standard of review for exceptional sentences)
State v. Thomas, 138 Wn.2d 630 (Wash. 1999) (conduct or factors cannot be inherent to the offense for exceptions)
State v. Williams, 159 Wn. App. 298 (Wash. App. 2011) (disdain for the law supports rapid recidivism factor)
State v. Combs, 156 Wn. App. 502 (Wash. App. 2010) (timeframe for ‘shortly after’ release varies by circumstances)
State v. Steen, 155 Wn. App. 243 (Wash. App. 2010) (jury instruction on sexual motivation; not controlling here)
State v. Galbreath, 69 Wn.2d 664 (Wash. 1966) (definition of open and obscene exposure; not requiring sexual gratification)
State v. Vars, 157 Wn. App. 482 (Wash. App. 2010) (open and obscene exposure requires societal sense of modesty; no sexual gratification proof required)
State v. Baldwin, 150 Wn.2d 448 (Wash. 2003) (void-for-vagueness in sentencing statutes; not controlling for RCW 9.94A.535)