State v. Graham, 314 P.3d 1148

Graham III involves resentencing after Williams-Walker required a deadly weapon enhancement when the jury found armed with a deadly weapon.
On remand, the trial court reduced Graham’s standard-range sentence from 1,225.5 to 985.5 months, incorporating multiple firearm enhancements.
Graham argued for a mitigated exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.589(l)(g) based on the multiple offense policy in (l)(a).
The court distinguished between the multiple offense policy under (l)(a) and substitutes under (l)(b) for serious violent offenses, ultimately denying a mitigated sentence.
Graham appealed; the court concluded the trial court did not err in denying a mitigated sentence and affirmed.
The State later sought cross relief, which the court noted but did not grant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the multiple offense policy applies to serious violent offenses under RCW 9.94A.589(l)(b).	Graham argues policy should mitigate under (l)(a).	Graham contends (l)(b) allows mitigation via policy.	No; (l)(a) policy does not apply to (l)(b) cases; court properly denied mitigation.
Whether Graham may appeal the standard-range sentence after remand for Williams-Walker.	Graham contends the resentencing ruling is appealable.	State asserts limited issues on remand; standard-range appeal allowed under exceptions.	Appeal allowed for the standard-range sentence under proper circumstances.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying a mitigated exceptional sentence.	Argues court failed to consider mitigating facts.	Court considered facts and rejected the basis for mitigation.	Court did not abuse discretion; relied on permissible grounds and factual context.
Whether RCW 9.94A.589(l)(b) permits a mitigated exceptional sentence for serious violent offenses.	Mitigation should be available under policy.	Policy does not support mitigated exceptions under (l)(b).	Mitigation under (l)(g) not available for serious violent offenses under (l)(b); court’s ruling correct.

State v. Williams, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010) (deadly weapon enhancement required when jury finds armed with a deadly weapon)
State v. Batista, 116 Wn.2d 777 (1991) (explains the ‘multiple offense policy’ framework for offender scores)
State v. Barherio, 121 Wn.2d 48 (1993) (appeals when trial court exercises discretion after mitigation considerations)
State v. Toney, 149 Wn. App. 787 (2009) (second-appeal issues may be raised if remand permits entirely new sentencing)
State v. Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. App. 322 (1997) (limitations on appealing a court’s denial of an exceptional sentence)