State v. Hunley
253 P.3d 448
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hunley was convicted by jury of attempting to elude a police vehicle under RCW 46.61.024.
- The officer signaled Hunley to stop; Hunley fled at high speed and through multiple stop signs before abandoning the vehicle.
- A special allegation alleged that others were threatened by Hunley’s elusion; the jury answered yes.
- At sentencing, the State cited Hunley’s prior convictions to calculate an offender score and imposed the top of the standard range.
- Hunley challenged (1) ineffective assistance for not requesting a lesser included offense instruction, and (2) sentencing provisions that allegedly relieve the State of proof burden.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the amended SRA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is reckless driving a lesser included offense to attempting to elude a police vehicle? | Hunley claims it is; the State argues it is not after 2003 amendment. | Reckless driving should be included since it shares elements and mental state. | No; reckless driving is not a lesser included offense. |
| Do 2008 amendments to RCW 9.94A.500(1) and RCW 9.94A.530(2) unconstitutionally relieve the State of proving prior convictions at sentencing? | Amendments violate due process by shifting burden from the State. | Legislature can structure prima facie evidence; defendant only must object. | Amendments unconstitutional as applied; remand for resentencing with evidence of prior convictions. |
| May the State rely on a criminal history summary as prima facie evidence for offender score upon defendant’s lack of objection? | State should meet primary burden; silent defendant should not foreclose evidence. | Defendant’s silence should not necessarily shift burden. | Remand allowed; State may present evidence on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ford, 137 Wash.2d 472 (Wash. 1999) (due process required evidentiary basis beyond bare assertions at sentencing)
- State v. Mendoza, 165 Wash.2d 913 (Wash. 2009) (affirmed need for affirmative acknowledgement of criminal history evidence)
- State v. Ammons, 105 Wash.2d 175 (Wash. 1986) (preponderance of the evidence sufficient for prior convictions at sentencing)
- State v. Weaver, 171 Wash.2d 256 (Wash. 2011) (discusses 2000/2009 amendments and sentencing procedures post-Ford)
- State v. Stenson, 142 Wash.2d 710 (Wash. 2001) (ineffective assistance framework under Strickland)