278 P.3d 668
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Morales was arrested December 7, 2009 for felony DUI, attempting to elude a pursuing officer, and DWLS; DWLS was dismissed for insufficient evidence.
- At sentencing the parties disputed Morales's offender score; the court used 8.
- Morales argues the offender score should be 4; the State argues it should be 8.
- RCW 9.94A.525 governs offender-score calculations, with subsections (2)(d) and (2)(e) governing washout and inclusion rules.
- The court ultimately agrees Morales and holds only three 2001–2007 DUIs count, the 1990s convictions wash out, the current DUI is scored as 1, totaling an offender score of 4; the 1996 assault does not count as a qualifying prior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper washout of older convictions under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(e). | Morales—older convictions wash out; only recent DUIs count. | State—older convictions are includable under (2)(e). | Washout applies; only three recent DUIs counted, score is 4. |
| Whether the 1990s serious traffic offenses count under (2)(e)(i). | Only the listed classes count; older offenses did not fit (2)(e)(i). | All seven prior convictions within five years of the current offense count under (2)(e)(i). | Only the qualifying priors listed in (2)(e)(i) are counted; the 1990s offenses do not count. |
| Whether a 1996 fourth-degree domestic violence assault counts as a prior conviction for DUI scoring. | Assault could count if among qualifying priors. | Not counted; fourth-degree assault is not among the qualifying prior offenses in (2)(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471 (2001) (interprets use of 'the crime' vs. 'a crime' for statutory language interpretation)
- Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash.2d 139 (2000) (statutory language must be given effect and avoid surplus or void language)
- Waste Mgt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wash.2d 621 (1994) (read statutes as a unified whole; harmonize related provisions)
- State v. Draxinger, 148 Wash.App. 533 (2008) (Draxinger discusses application of (e)(i)/(ii) in DUI scoring)