State of Washington v. Raven S. Newman
33605-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- On July 15, 2014, Raven Newman was convicted by a jury of delivery of methamphetamine.
- Before sentencing Newman requested a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) and submitted character letters; none clearly documented a substance use disorder.
- A presentence substance-abuse screening indicated Newman "may" suffer from a substance use disorder and recommended a full assessment; the report contained minimal detail.
- At sentencing the State objected to DOSA, emphasizing the report’s lack of information and that the conviction was for delivery (not possession).
- The trial court concluded the record did not show treatment would likely prevent future drug delivery, denied DOSA, imposed a standard-range sentence, and ordered treatment as a community custody condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Newman) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying DOSA | Newman: Court misapprehended RCW 9.94A.660 and believed it could not impose DOSA without a fuller report; denial was therefore an abuse of discretion | State/Court: Report lacked evidence that treatment would prevent future delivery; DOSA inappropriate here | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court did not misapprehend its authority and reasonably denied DOSA |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 123 Wn. App. 106 (discusses appealability of standard-range sentences and alternatives)
- State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 288 (same context on sentencing alternative appealability)
- State v. Williams, 149 Wn.2d 143 (appellate review available for legal error or abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- State v. McCormick, 166 Wn.2d 689 (defines abuse of discretion standard in sentencing)
- State v. Mulholland, 161 Wn.2d 322 (trial court abuses discretion if it erroneously believes it lacks discretion)
- State v. Hender, 180 Wn. App. 895 (purpose of DOSA is meaningful treatment when in best interests of individual and community)
- State v. Guerrero, 163 Wn. App. 773 (screening report is discretionary, not mandatory)