State Of Washington, V. Taylor Tom Conley, 57797-6

Background

Taylor Conley was convicted of first-degree aggravated murder in 2008 for a crime committed at age 20, and was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) under RCW 10.95.030(1).
Following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in In re Personal Restraint of Monschke (2021), which found mandatory LWOP unconstitutional for 18- to 20-year-olds, Conley sought resentencing under CrR 7.8.
At resentencing, the trial court imposed the same LWOP sentence, after considering evidence of Conley's youth, rehabilitative efforts, and the circumstances of the offense.
Conley appealed, challenging both procedural and substantive aspects of the resentencing, including use of restraints, the constitutionality of discretionary LWOP for young adults, and how mitigating factors were weighed.
The appellate court analyzed each of Conley’s claims, ultimately affirming the trial court’s imposition of LWOP and rejecting arguments for a lesser or indeterminate sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to be present at restraint hearing	Absent from hearing violated his constitutional right	Hearing not a "critical stage"; no error, and issue waived	No right; if right existed, it was waived
Requirement to wear a stun cuff	Use of stun cuff was unjustified and unfairly prejudicial	Court properly considered security factors and safety	No abuse of discretion; individualized findings justified restraint
Constitutionality of discretionary LWOP for 18–20-year-olds	Discretionary LWOP violates state constitution’s ban on cruel punishment	Discretionary LWOP is permitted under current law for young adults	Not unconstitutional under Art. I, Section 14
Discretionary LWOP for those showing rehabilitation	Sentence unconstitutional when evidence showed Conley had rehabilitative potential	Court considered rehab but is not required to impose lesser sentence solely on that basis	Not unconstitutional; court discretion remains
Weight of mitigating and rehabilitative factors	Court failed to give adequate weight to rehabilitation and youth	Court considered all mitigating factors as required	Trial court properly considered all factors; no abuse of discretion
Burden of proof on mitigating factors	Erroneously placed burden on defendant to prove mitigation when no standard range exists	Defendant bears burden for exceptional sentence; court also considered both frameworks	No error; court applied both standards and would not have changed result
Failure to consider indeterminate sentence	Court erroneously failed to consider indeterminate sentencing options	Indeterminate sentence not available under governing law	No error; only determinate sentence from zero days up to LWOP permitted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383 (Wash. 1981) (establishes factors for courtroom security and use of restraints)
State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2017) (sentencing courts must consider mitigating circumstances of youth)
State v. Bassett, 192 Wn.2d 67 (Wash. 2018) (categorically bars juvenile LWOP under Washington Constitution)
State v. Ramos, 187 Wn.2d 420 (Wash. 2017) (courts must consider mitigating factors for juveniles facing serious sentences)
State v. Haag, 198 Wn.2d 309 (Wash. 2021) (resentencing must weigh rehabilitation for juveniles)
State v. Carter, 3 Wn.3d 198 (Wash. 2024) (clarifies available sentencing range for young adults post-Monschke)