State v. Weaver
251 P.3d 876
Wash.2011Background
- Weaver was convicted by a jury of second degree rape of a child and second degree rape, with a special verdict finding impregnation.
- The State sought an exceptional sentence based on those findings; sentencing occurred after DOC presentence procedures but no presentence report was completed because Weaver did not appear for a required interview.
- At sentencing, the court noted the absence of the State's normal sentencing package and relied on a DOC presentence statement, with Weaver having two burglary convictions in his criminal history.
- Defense acknowledged Weaver's criminal history but did not object; counsel stated the presentencing interview could not be conducted due to unavailability of counsel.
- The court counted the burglary convictions in Weaver’s offender score and imposed consecutive, exceptional prison terms centering on impregnation, despite proposed merger of the rape convictions.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Weaver’s supposed acknowledgment of history; Mendoza later clarified the scope of presentence reports and what constitutes acknowledgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of a presentence report bars the sentence | Weaver did not submit to interview; no DOC report; Mendoza control | State’s materials can inform sentencing absent a formal report | Reversed; remanded for proceedings consistent with Mendoza |
| Whether Weaver affirmatively acknowledged criminal history | No affirmative acknowledgment due to lack of presentence report | Criminal history can be relied upon from other materials | Weaver did not affirmatively acknowledge under Mendoza |
| Whether the State may rely on a prosecutor's 'criminal history' statement in lieu of a presentence report | Such statements are not presentence reports under Mendoza | These materials may be considered to some extent for sentencing | Not proper under Mendoza; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Washington, 165 Wash.2d 913, 205 P.3d 113 (2009) (presentence reports defined; prohibits reliance on non-report documents)
- State v. Womac, 160 Wash.2d 643, 160 P.3d 40 (2007) (double jeopardy/merger considerations in sentencing)
- State v. Bergstrom, 162 Wash.2d 87, 169 P.3d 816 (2007) (remand and scope of resentencing questions clarified)