State Of Washington v. Saichaun Patrick Hardy
74941-2
Wash. Ct. App.Jun 12, 2017Background
- Hardy, a 14-year-old juvenile, was found guilty of first degree robbery based on 53 findings of fact from a January 2016 bench trial.
- The incident occurred around 10:30 p.m. outside a Seattle convenience store, where Hardy grabbed a cell phone from a woman, then fired a BB gun after a pursuit and a stun-gun confrontation.
- Hardy testified he acted in self-defense when shot with the stun gun, and argued insufficiency of evidence of force with intent to retain property.
- The standard range for first degree robbery was 103 to 129 weeks; Hardy sought a mitigated disposition of 47 to 52 weeks, arguing two mitigating factors and youthfulness.
- The trial court denied a manifest injustice disposition, imposing the standard range 103 to 129 weeks, after considering the mitigating factors Hardy proposed.
- Hardy appeals, challenging the decision to impose a standard-range disposition rather than a downward deviation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a standard-range disposition is appealable. | Hardy; standard-range disposition is appealable when abuse of discretion occurred. | State; standard-range disposition is not appealable absent procedure failure. | Not appealable; no improper handling of mitigating factors shown. |
| Whether the court properly considered mitigating factors and the manifest injustice standard. | Hardy argued the two mitigating factors and youthfulness warranted downward disposition. | State contends court properly weighed factors and declined mitigation. | Court adequately considered mitigating factors and declined modification. |
| Whether the trial court erred in evaluating the 8 challenged findings related to the evidence of provocation and intent. | Hardy asserts findings misstate evidence; argues self-defense and provocation reduce culpability. | Court properly credited victim testimony supporting findings. | Findings supported by evidence; no error in challenged findings. |
| Whether the evidence supports the conviction for robbery given self-defense claim. | Hardy contends insufficient use of force to retain property for robbery; suggests lesser offenses. | State proved use of force with intent to retain victim's property. | Evidence sufficient for robbery; self-defense not dispositive. |
| Whether the decision to deny a manifest injustice reduction was supported by the record. | Hardy seeks downward disposition due to youth and mitigating factors. | Court found no statutory mitigating factors present. | Record supports court’s conclusion and denial of manifest injustice disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.W., 84 Wn. App. 808 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (appealability of juvenile disposition; procedural limits)
- M.L., 114 Wn. App. 358 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (standard range disposition appealability and procedure)
- Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. App. 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (review of whether trial court relied on impermissible basis for mitigation)