State Of Washington, V Tommy Lee Crow, Jr., 48859-1

Background

In 2009 Crow was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder (victims: David Miller and Norman Peterson) and second-degree arson; the jury found a deliberate-cruelty aggravator as to Peterson and a Good Samaritan aggravator as to Miller.
At original sentencing the court imposed an exceptional upward sentence: 360 months for Miller (based on Good Samaritan) and 300 months for Peterson (based on deliberate cruelty), ordered consecutively for a total of 660 months.
On collateral review this court held the evidence was insufficient to support the Good Samaritan aggravator and vacated the murder sentences, remanding for resentencing.
At resentencing the prosecutor and defense agreed Miller’s count should receive a high-end standard-range sentence (265 months); defense sought restoration of the prior exceptional addition for Peterson (80 months); the court instead imposed a 115-month aggravated addition for Peterson (total 335 months) and ran the sentences consecutively for 600 months.
The resentencing court made a written finding that Crow’s conduct manifested deliberate cruelty to Peterson and concluded there were substantial and compelling reasons to impose an exceptional sentence; Crow appealed, asserting (1) inadequate findings as to why deliberate cruelty justified the upward sentence, (2) impermissible reliance on the Good Samaritan aggravator previously disapproved, and (3) that the Peterson sentence was clearly excessive.

Issues

Issue	Crow's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing court failed to enter adequate written findings tying deliberate cruelty to an aggravated upward sentence	Resentencing court did not make specific factual findings explaining why deliberate cruelty justified the exceptional 115-month addition	Jury already found deliberate cruelty; resentencing court made the required legal conclusion and identified the aggravator in writing	Court held findings and conclusions satisfied RCW 9.94A.535; no remand required (finding not clearly erroneous)
Whether resentencing court impermissibly relied on the Good Samaritan aggravator previously rejected on appeal	Court impermissibly considered the disapproved Good Samaritan aggravator to justify the Peterson upward sentence	Court may consider facts and victim statements at sentencing but may rely only on the jury-found aggravator (deliberate cruelty) for the exceptional sentence; the court explicitly said it was bound by the prior decision	Court held no impermissible reliance; factual references to victim bravery were permissible and court expressly limited the exceptional sentence to deliberate cruelty
Whether the 335-month aggravated sentence for Peterson is clearly excessive	Sentence is excessive because judge relied on facts from Miller’s murder and added more than defense requested	The court had discretion; reasons for upward sentence are tenable and length does not shock the conscience	Court held sentence not clearly excessive; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (jury must find facts supporting aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85 (Wash. 2005) (standards of review for aggravated exceptional sentences)
State v. Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d 280 (Wash. 2006) (trial judge’s role after jury finds aggravating circumstances)
State v. Friedlund, 182 Wn.2d 388 (Wash. 2015) (requirement for written findings and conclusions when imposing exceptional sentences)
State v. Witherspoon, 180 Wn.2d 875 (Wash. 2014) (sentencing court may consider facts underlying a conviction)
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wn.2d 117 (Wash. 2010) (aggravating factors must be supported by sufficient evidence)
State v. Ritchie, 126 Wn.2d 388 (Wash. 1995) (standard for determining whether a sentence is clearly excessive)