287 P.3d 584
Wash.2012Background
- Hunley was convicted by a jury on July 13, 2009 of attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle.
- At sentencing, the State presented a prosecutor summary, an unsworn list of six alleged prior convictions with cause numbers and one date, without accompanying documentation.
- The defense filed a defense statement but Hunley did not object or affirmatively agree with the prosecutor summary; the defense sought mitigating factors for an exceptional downward sentence.
- Based on the prosecutor summary, the trial court calculated an offender score of five and imposed a 24-month sentence within the top of the standard range.
- On appeal, Hunley challenged the sufficiency of the prosecutor summary and argued the 2008 SRA amendments shifted the burden of proof at sentencing.
- The Court of Appeals held the 2008 amendments to RCW 9.94A.500(1) and .530(2) unconstitutional insofar as they allowed a court to rely on a prosecutor summary and a defendant’s failure to object to determine criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 SRA amendments shift the burden at sentencing | Hunley argues amendments shift burden to prove convictions. | State contends amendments valid to reflect complete history. | Amendments shift burden unconstitutionally; unconstitutional as applied/on face. |
| Analytical approach to due process when relying on prosecutor summaries | Ford/Mendoza line of cases require evidentiary proof, not bare assertions. | State may rely on summaries as prima facie evidence of history. | Due process requires some evidentiary support; bare statements are insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472 (Wash. 1999) (holding burden to prove prior convictions by preponderance; bare assertions inadequate)
- State v. Mendoza, 165 Wn.2d 913 (Wash. 2009) (affirmative acknowledgment required; presentence report distinctions)
- State v. Lopez, 147 Wn.2d 515 (Wash. 2002) (unproved convictions cannot be used absent evidence)
- State v. Bergstrom, 162 Wn.2d 87 (Wash. 2007) (reaffirmed burden on State to prove prior convictions)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353 (Wash. 1988) (importance of reliable sentencing procedures)
- Mattson, 166 Wn.2d 730 (Wash. 2009) (mootness with public interest exception for sentencing issues)