State v. Oakley
242 P.3d 886
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Oakley was charged with three counts of first degree assault and one count of drive-by shooting arising from an April 2007 incident.
- Witnesses saw Oakley point and attempt to fire a gun from a car during a confrontation with the Lynns; the gun allegedly jammed or did not discharge.
- A firearms expert testified the rifle was operable if loaded correctly; no bullets or shell casings were recovered at the scene.
- Oakley fled after the incident; damages to Dejong’s vehicle and garage door occurred during his flight.
- The jury convicted Oakley of three second degree assault counts and one count of attempted drive-by shooting, with firearm enhancements on each assault, and a restitution order was entered for Dejong damages.
- Court ordered publication in part and affirmed some verdicts while remanding for restitution guidance; the court ultimately vacated the restitution portion related to uncharged acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted drive-by shooting | Oakley argues the gun did not discharge, so no substantial step. | Oakley asserts lack of discharge negates attempt. | Sufficient evidence supports attempted drive-by shooting. |
| Firearm enhancements and double jeopardy | Firearm use was an element of assault; enhancements violate double jeopardy under Apprendi/Blakely rationale. | Enhancements separate punishment; statutory intent supports multiple punishments. | Imposition of firearm enhancements not violative of double jeopardy (Kelley applied). |
| Restitution for damages from uncharged acts | Damages causally connected to charged crimes via flight. | No causal link between charged acts and Dejong damages; restitution should be limited. | Remand to vacate restitution for damages arising from uncharged acts; causal connection insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 (2010) (firearm enhancements permissible when use of firearm is an element of the offense)
- State v. Longshore, 141 Wash.2d 414 (2000) (legal sufficiency—any rational trier could convict beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Hosier, 157 Wash.2d 1 (2006) (credibility and inference in weighing evidence; standard of review)
- State v. Varga, 151 Wash.2d 179 (2004) (weight of direct and circumstantial evidence; same as direct evidence)
- State v. Cantu, 156 Wash.2d 819 (2006) (credibility determinations lie with the trier of fact)
- State v. Enstone, 89 Wash. App. 882 (1998) (causal connection for restitution requires 'but for' the offense)
- State v. Dauenhauer, 103 Wash. App. 373 (2000) (restitution cannot be based on acts beyond charged offenses)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for two offenses when same act violates two statutes)