State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wash. 2d 535

Background

In 2007, 16-year-old Guadalupe Solis-Diaz Jr. was tried as an adult and convicted of multiple violent offenses involving a firearm; Judge Nelson Hunt imposed a standard-range aggregate sentence of 1,111 months.
On collateral review the Court of Appeals ordered resentencing, finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to obtain a presentence report and failing to inform the court that Solis-Diaz had been automatically declined to adult court because of his age and the nature of the charges.
At the first resentencing before Judge Hunt, the State acknowledged recent law allowing youth as a basis for an exceptional downward sentence but urged the original sentence; Solis-Diaz requested a 15-year sentence.
Judge Hunt reiterated that he would not impose a mitigated sentence, defended defense counsel, characterized the Court of Appeals’ ruling as insulting, and asserted the original sentence had produced deterrent effects in the community.
The Court of Appeals again vacated and remanded, directing a meaningful individualized inquiry into youth and multiple-offense mitigation but declined to disqualify Judge Hunt; Solis-Diaz sought review of that refusal.
The Washington Supreme Court held Judge Hunt’s remarks and prior conduct created a reasonable appearance that his impartiality might be questioned and ordered resentencing before a different judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Hunt should be disqualified from resentencing	Judge Hunt’s statements and conduct show he has already prejudged the matter and a reasonable observer would doubt his impartiality	Judge Hunt’s experience and prior rulings do not require disqualification; erroneous rulings are for appeal and he can follow remand guidance	Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this narrow point and ordered resentencing before a different judge because impartiality might reasonably be questioned
Whether resentencing must include meaningful consideration of youth and multiple-offense mitigation	Solis-Diaz argued those factors must be meaningfully considered under O’Dell and Graham	State acknowledged the law but advocated for the same sentence; Judge Hunt said he had no authority to mitigate on those bases given facts	Court reaffirmed need for individualized inquiry but focused remedy on disqualification due to judge’s statements
Proper remedy when appellate court remands but trial judge has expressed strong views	Solis-Diaz contended reassignment on remand is appropriate when judge has expressed prejudgment	State argued reassignment is limited and an appellate opinion can guide remand; recusal should be raised below	Court applied precedent allowing reassignment where judge will exercise discretion on remand and has been exposed to prohibited information or prejudged the issue — reassignment warranted here
Standard for appearance of fairness/recusal on appeal	That a reasonable, informed observer would conclude the judge could not consider mitigation with an open mind	That experience and prior knowledge do not equal bias; procedural mechanisms exist to raise recusal at trial	Court applied objective test and concluded appearance of fairness was compromised; remanded for resentencing before a different judge

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161 (2010) (appearance of fairness doctrine requires judge both be impartial and appear so)
Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164 (1995) (objective test assumes reasonable observer knows all relevant facts for recusal analysis)
State v. McEnroe, 181 Wn.2d 375 (2014) (reassignment on appeal limited but appropriate when judge exposed to prohibited information or prejudged issue)
State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (2015) (youth may be a basis for exceptional downward sentence)
State v. Graham, 181 Wn.2d 878 (2014) (multiple-offense policy can inform mitigation analysis)