State v. Graciano
176 Wash. 2d 531
| Wash. | 2013Background
- Aldana Graciano was charged with four counts of first degree child rape and two counts of first degree child molestation involving E.R., plus one count of first degree child molestation involving J.R.
- At sentencing, Graciano's counsel argued the offenses should be treated as the same criminal conduct under RCW 9.94A.589(l)(a) for offender-score purposes.
- The trial court refused to treat the offenses as same criminal conduct, ruling each count was separate and distinct.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the sentencing court’s same-criminal-conduct determination de novo and remanded for resentencing.
- This Court held that such determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion or misapplication of law, not de novo, and reinstated the trial court’s ruling.
- The decision centers on who bears the burden of proof to show same versus separate conduct, and on whether the record supports a finding of same conduct at the relevant time and place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for same criminal conduct | Graciano | Graciano | Abuse of discretion or misapplication of law |
| Burden of proof for same criminal conduct | State bears burden to prove same conduct | State bears burden to prove separate conduct | State bears burden to prove crime are not same conduct; defendant bears burden only to prove same conduct when beneficial |
| Adequacy of the record to decide same vs separate conduct | Record unclear about time/place of incidents; could be same conduct | Record insufficient to conclude separate conduct | Trial court did not abuse discretion given lack of clear evidence of same time and place |
| Jury instruction vs statutory test for same conduct | Jury instruction implied separate acts | Statutory test governs same conduct | Trial court did not delegate essential determination; reliance on jury instruction was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6 (1990) (same conduct reviewed for abuse of discretion or misapplication of law)
- State v. Burns, 114 Wn.2d 314 (1990) (same conduct review requires clear abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law)
- State v. Maxfield, 125 Wn.2d 378 (1994) (burden on whether two offenses require same criminal intent is abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law)