State v. Weatherwax
93192-5
| Wash. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- In 2013 Weatherwax and Rodgers committed drive-by shootings; each was convicted of three counts of first-degree assault and one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree assault (an anticipatory offense), among other charges.
- The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) generally requires concurrent sentences, but RCW 9.94A.589(1)(b) mandates consecutive sentences for multiple "serious violent offenses arising from separate and distinct criminal conduct," using "the offense with the highest seriousness level under RCW 9.94A.515" as the starting point.
- RCW 9.94A.515’s seriousness-level chart lists completed offenses but does not explicitly list anticipatory offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy). RCW 9.94A.595 treats inchoate crimes using the target crime’s grid and applies a 75% multiplier.
- At sentencing the trial court used a completed first-degree assault conviction as the highest seriousness-level offense, producing very long aggregate sentences (Weatherwax: 810 months; Rodgers: 546 months).
- Division Three of the Court of Appeals held anticipatory offenses have no seriousness level and affirmed the longer sentence; Division One (Breaux) had previously held ambiguity exists and applied the rule of lenity to favor the shorter sentence.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding anticipatory offenses share the seriousness level of their completed target crimes and that, when multiple offenses tie for highest seriousness level but yield different standard ranges, the court must base calculations on the offense producing the lower overall sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anticipatory offenses (conspiracy/attempt/solicitation) have a seriousness level under RCW 9.94A.515 for RCW 9.94A.589(1)(b) purposes | Anticipatory offenses should carry the same seriousness level as their completed target crimes (citing RCW 9.94A.595 practice and avoiding anomalies) | Anticipatory offenses have no seriousness level under RCW 9.94A.515 and thus cannot serve as the predicate for consecutive calculations (Division Three view) | Anticipatory offenses have the same seriousness level as their target completed crimes for RCW 9.94A.589(1)(b) purposes. |
| When two or more serious violent offenses tie for the highest seriousness level but yield different standard ranges, which offense must the court use as the starting point for consecutive-sentence calculations? | Use the anticipatory/other offense that yields the shorter total sentence (rule of lenity where statute is ambiguous) | Use the completed offense that produces the longer sentence (statutory purpose to increase punishment) | RCW 9.94A.589(1)(b) is ambiguous on this point; under the rule of lenity the court must start calculations with the offense that produces the lower overall sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Breaux, 167 Wn. App. 166 (Court of Appeals) (applied rule of lenity; start with offense yielding shorter sentence)
- State v. Mendoza, 63 Wn. App. 373 (1991) (dicta indicating inchoate offenses adopt seriousness level of completed crime)
- State v. Weber, 159 Wn.2d 252 (2006) (noted issue in dicta)
- State v. Conover, 183 Wn.2d 706 (statutory interpretation standards; rule of lenity discussion)
- State v. Tvedt, 153 Wn.2d 705 (rule of lenity principle requiring strict construction in favor of defendant)