State v. Olsen
180 Wash. 2d 468
Wash.2014Background
- Olsen committed domestic violence against the mother of his children, including a gasoline attack and threats to kill.
- Olsen had a California conviction for terrorist threats used to compute his offender score.
- Washington’s SRA offender-score framework uses a two-part comparability test for out-of-state convictions (Morley).
- Descamps v. United States (2013) restricted when courts may look to underlying facts via the modified categorical approach.
- Court held Washington’s comparability analysis survives Descamps and that the California conviction is legally and factually comparable to Washington’s felony harassment for offender score purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington’s comparability framework survives Descamps. | Olsen argues Descamps limits reliance on foreign facts. | Washington framework remains valid post-Descamps. | Yes; comparability framework survives Descamps. |
| Whether the California terrorist-threats conviction is legally/factually comparable to Washington felony harassment. | The California statute is broader and not comparable. | The facts admitted show overlap with Washington felony harassment. | The California conviction is factually comparable to felony harassment for offender score. |
| Whether Lavery/Thiefault narrowing limits use of underlying facts in comparability. | Limitations foreclose reliance on extra-charged facts. | Facts admitted/proved support comparability. | Limitation applied; only admitted facts considered. |
| Whether the trial court properly calculated Olsen’s offender score. | Custodial-interference conviction should wash out, reducing score. | California conviction properly included; custodial-interference does not wash out. | California conviction correctly included; score affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morley v. State, 134 Wn.2d 588 (1998) (two-part comparability test for out-of-state convictions (legal then factual prongs))
- Lavery v. State, 154 Wn.2d 249 (2005) (limits factual prong to elements charged and proved beyond reasonable doubt; Apprendi concerns)
- Thiefault v. State, 160 Wn.2d 409 (2007) (further narrowing of factual prong; reliance on admitted facts only)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (limits modified categorical approach to indivisible statutes; cannot use outside facts for indivisible offenses)