State v. Bailon Wences, 93605-6

Background

In 2005 a jury convicted Marco Bailon Wences of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; the jury answered "yes" on a special verdict asking whether he was "armed with a deadly weapon."
Wences failed to appear for his scheduled 2005 sentencing and fled, remaining at large until arrested in 2015.
At the 2015 sentencing the trial court imposed a 36-month firearm enhancement (total 100 months), exceeding the one-year deadly-weapon enhancement authorized by the jury's special verdict.
Wences appealed, relying on State v. Williams-Walker (2010), which held a jury must expressly authorize a firearm enhancement and that sentencing judges are bound by the jury's special verdict.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning Wences should not benefit from intervening law because his sentencing was delayed by his own flight; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for resentencing, holding Williams-Walker (a new rule of criminal procedure) applies to cases not yet final, including Wences's 2015 judgment and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wences)	Defendant's Argument (State / Court of Appeals)	Held
Whether Williams-Walker applies to Wences's 2015 sentence	Williams-Walker is a new rule of criminal procedure and must be applied to cases not yet final; the jury authorized only a deadly-weapon (one-year) enhancement	Wences' conviction was from 2005 and sentencing was delayed by his flight; he should not benefit from intervening changes in law caused by his own absconding	Williams-Walker applies; the jury authorized only a deadly-weapon enhancement and the firearm enhancement was unlawful — reversal and remand for resentencing
Whether a defendant who absconds is excepted from retroactive application of new procedural rules	Retroactive application protects jury-trial rights regardless of defendant's conduct	Absconding defendants should not benefit from legal changes that occur during their flight; precedent allows treating fugitives differently	No exception for absconding defendants; bright-line rule applies to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final
Whether the sentencing court could impose a firearm enhancement given the special verdict form	Jury verdict and instructions do not authorize a firearm enhancement absent an explicit jury firearm finding	The jury instructions plus verdict form authorized the enhancement; or, alternatively, sentencing under pre-Williams-Walker law was appropriate given delay	Jury special verdict authorized only deadly-weapon enhancement; three-year firearm enhancement was impermissible
Proper remedy when an unlawful enhancement is imposed	Vacate enhancement and remand for resentencing consistent with Williams-Walker	Uphold sentence due to finality considerations tied to original conviction date and defendant's flight	Reverse Court of Appeals; remand to superior court for resentencing consistent with Williams-Walker

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (Wash. 2010) (holds jury must expressly authorize firearm enhancement; sentencing judge bound by special verdict)
State v. Recuenco, 154 Wn.2d 156 (Wash. 2005) (addressed jury role in firearm enhancements under Washington law)
In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321 (Wash. 1992) (announces rule that new criminal-procedure rules apply to cases pending on direct review or not yet final)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new rules for criminal prosecutions apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
In re Pers. Restraint of Eastmond, 173 Wn.2d 632 (Wash. 2012) (applies Williams-Walker as a new procedural rule requiring retroactive application)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (statutory maximum defined by facts admitted or found by a jury)
State v. Hanson, 151 Wn.2d 783 (Wash. 2004) (discusses retroactivity and the bright-line finality rule)
Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1993) (discusses courthouses' power to address fugitives; fugitive disentitlement doctrine)