State v. Weaver
171 Wash. 2d 256
Wash.2011Background
- Weaver was convicted of second degree rape of a child and second degree rape, with a special verdict that the victim was a child and that Weaver impregnated her.
- The State sought an exceptional sentence based on those findings; sentencing involved a presentence investigation and interview that Weaver failed to attend.
- The trial court began to prepare a presentence package, but no report was completed due to Weaver’s nonappearance.
- The court counted prior burglary convictions for the offender score and imposed consecutive terms, relying on the impregnation finding; defe nse did not object at sentencing.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the sentence; Mendoza v. State later held that the prosecutor’s criminal-history statement is not a presentence report.
- Weaver petitioned for review; Mendoza prompted remand to reconsider, and the Court of Appeals again remanded with reliance on a facial sheet rather than a true presentence report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal history used for the offender score was valid without a completed presentence report | Weaver | Weaver | Remanded for proper consideration under Mendoza |
| Whether the State’s statement of criminal history can be treated as a presentence report | Weaver | Weaver | Not a presentence report; improper reliance |
| Whether Weaver affirmatively acknowledged his criminal history | Weaver | Weaver | No affirmative acknowledgment under Mendoza |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred by relying on a special face sheet rather than a genuine presentence report | Weaver | Weaver | REVERSED; remand for proceedings consistent with Mendoza |
| Whether double jeopardy concerns may be raised at resentencing | Weaver | Weaver | Weaver may raise double jeopardy issue at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. State, 165 Wn.2d 913 (2009) (presentence reports exclude prosecutor’s statements; CrR 7.1 not satisfied)
- State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643 (2007) (double jeopardy considerations on remand)
- State v. Bergstrom, 162 Wn.2d 87 (2007) (guidance on remand scope and resentencing)