State Of Washington v. Palwinder Singh, 75114-0

Background

Appellant Palwinder Singh was charged with residential burglary, two counts of felony violation of a court order, third-degree assault (his sister), fourth-degree assault (his mother), and third-degree malicious mischief arising from incidents involving his estranged wife, Jaspal Kaur, and family members.
Evidence at trial: Kaur obtained a no-contact order forbidding Singh from being within 1,000 feet of her home; Singh repeatedly violated that order, and in July 2015 allegedly entered Kaur’s home, assaulted Kaur, bit his sister’s hand, and pushed his mother.
Singh testified he was not at Kaur’s home and denied the assaults, but admitted awareness of the no-contact order.
Jury verdicts: guilty of residential burglary, third-degree assault of his sister, and two felony violations of a court order; acquitted on the mother assault count; one felony-violation count deadlocked and was dismissed; malicious mischief dismissed.
At sentencing the parties disputed offender scores (State initially higher; State conceded defense’s lower scores). The court adopted the defense-offender scores and imposed a DOSA sentence. The State failed to introduce proof of Singh’s prior convictions and the court did not identify the prior convictions used in calculating the offender score.
Appeal: Singh argued (1) the burglary verdict violated jury unanimity because the State presented multiple acts/means, and (2) sentencing was defective because the State did not prove the criminal-history points and the court did not specify the prior convictions.

Issues

Issue	Singh's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether jury unanimity was required for residential burglary when evidence showed multiple acts/means (unlawful entry vs. unlawful remaining)	Jury must be unanimous as to which act/means proved the burglary; failure to elect or instruct violated unanimity	Either the acts were alternative means (no express unanimity needed if each means supported) or multiple acts were part of a continuing course of conduct (no unanimity required)	No unanimity violation: evidence supported both entry and remaining as alternative means, and in any event the acts formed a continuing course of conduct, so unanimity instruction/election not required.
Sufficiency of evidence for alternative means (unlawful entry and unlawful remaining with intent)	Insufficient proof that Singh unlawfully entered with intent; State elected other acts	Evidence supported inferences of unlawful entry and of remaining with intent to violate the no-contact order and to assault Kaur	Evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support both means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether multiple acts were part of a continuing course of conduct (thus avoiding unanimity requirement)	Acts were distinct and State relied on different conduct; unanimity required	Entry and remaining occurred at same time/place with same parties and purpose — a single continuing course to contact/confront the victim	Acts were temporally and spatially connected and shared the same ultimate purpose; they constituted a continuing course of conduct, so unanimity not required.
Whether sentencing court properly calculated offender score and relied on proved prior convictions	Sentence must be vacated because State failed to prove prior convictions and court failed to specify convictions relied on; Singh did not admit underlying priors	Singh’s acknowledgment of offender score relieved State of burden; court error was minor and remediable	Held for Singh: State must prove priors by a preponderance unless defendant affirmatively acknowledges the facts — Singh never admitted the underlying priors; court failed to identify convictions; sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Woodlyn, 188 Wn.2d 157 (2017) (discusses unanimity, alternative means, and sufficiency standards)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992) (defines sufficiency review and evidence standards)
State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (2012) (State’s burden to prove prior convictions at sentencing)
State v. Spencer, 128 Wn. App. 132 (2005) (continuing course of conduct analysis for multiple acts)
State v. Gonzales, 133 Wn. App. 236 (2006) (recognizes alternative means for burglary: unlawful entry or unlawful remaining)