State v. Oakley
242 P.3d 886
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Oakley appeals three second degree assault convictions and one attempted drive-by shooting conviction.
- He challenges sufficiency of evidence for attempted drive-by shooting because the gun did not discharge.
- He challenges firearm enhancements as violating double jeopardy when firearm use is an element of the offense.
- He challenges restitution on the basis that damages were unrelated to charged offenses.
- The State’s case included an incident where Oakley pointed a gun from a car toward the Lynns, a subsequent drive-by appearance, and evidence from witnesses and a firearms expert.
- The court affirmed the attempted drive-by conviction and the firearm enhancements, but reversed and remanded to strike the restitution portion related to uncharged damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted drive-by | Oakley—gun did not discharge; insufficient to prove attempt. | State—evidence shows substantial step toward drive-by with firearm pointed from vehicle. | Sufficient evidence to convict Oakley of attempted drive-by shooting. |
| Firearm enhancements and double jeopardy | Oakley—enhancements violate double jeopardy under Apprendi/Blakely framework. | Kelley controls; enhancements permissible where firearm use is an element; multiple punishments allowed. | Firearm enhancements on second degree assault convictions are valid. |
| Restitution for damages from uncharged acts | Oakley—damages stem from related conduct; restitution appropriate. | Damages lack causal connection to charged offenses; not authorized. | Remanded to vacate restitution for damages not causally linked to charged offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Longshore, 141 Wash.2d 414 (2000) (standard for sufficiency of evidence—reasonable doubt)
- State v. Hosier, 157 Wash.2d 1 (2006) (credibility and inference in sufficiency review)
- State v. Varga, 151 Wash.2d 179 (2004) (weight of direct and circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Cantu, 156 Wash.2d 819 (2006) (credibility determinations are for the fact-finder)
- State v. Aumick, 126 Wash.2d 422 (1995) (substantial step defined toward crime)
- State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 (2010) (firearm enhancements do not violate double jeopardy when firearm use is an element)
- State v. Enstone, 89 Wash.App. 882 (1998) (causal connection for restitution)
- State v. Davison, 116 Wash.2d 917 (1991) (statutory authority for restitution; discretion)
- State v. Dauenhauer, 103 Wash.App. 373 (2000) (restitution for uncharged acts may be vacated)