Pursuant to State v. Houston-Sconiers, a trial court must consider the mitigating qualities of a juvenile offender’s youth in sentencing a juvenile in a Washington criminal case. The court has discretion to impose a sentence below the standard range in juvenile cases. In a recent case, a juvenile defendant challenged his sentence, which was based on a joint recommendation as a result of a plea deal.
According to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, the defendant fatally stabbed someone multiple times and stole his wallet. The defendant ultimately admitted to stabbing the victim. The defendant was charged with first degree murder with a deadly weapon and would have been subject to a standard range sentence between 240 to 320 months, plus a deadly weapon enhancement.
Following lengthy negotiation, the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery and second degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon. The standard range sentence was 41 to 54 months for the first degree robbery charge and 142 to 244 months for the second degree murder charge. The state and the defendant jointly recommended a sentence that would total 244 months of confinement.
The trial court accepted the defendant’s plea. The prosecutor informed the court of the agreed recommendation and the defendant’s attorney asked the court to follow the joint recommendation due to the “heavily negotiated plea.”
The court accepted the recommendation, but stated the court would not have followed a recommendation of just 220 months.
The defendant filed a personal restraint petition in 2020, arguing he should be resentenced based on State v. Houston-Sconiers.
The appeals court concluded the defendant would breach his plea agreement by explicitly or implicitly seeking a lesser sentence, entitling the state to rescind the plea agreement. The court acknowledged that the Houston-Sconier rule applies retroactively to cases that are not final or are pending on appeal. The court therefore held the rule applied to the defendant’s case. The appeals court further concluded the state could not show that the error was harmless, but held resentencing was not appropriate. The court noted the defendant had a right to move to withdraw the plea.
The state petitioned for review, and the defendant cross-petitioned for review regarding the appropriate remedy.
The Washington Supreme Court noted that Houston-Sconiers did not address plea agreements because the defendants in that case had not entered pleas.
The defendant argued that he must be permitted to present evidence regarding the mitigating qualities of youth regardless of his plea agreement.
The Washington Supreme Court, however, held that when the state and a defendant reach a plea agreement that requires neither party to advocate for a lesser sentence, the trial court is not required to request mitigating evidence if it accepts the agreed recommendation. The parties must answer the court’s questions candidly without violating the plea agreement in doing so.
The court must consider mitigating evidence related to the defendant’s youth if the parties do not reach an agreed recommendation or if the court does not accept the agreed recommendation.
The Washington Supreme Court found no error in the trial court’s lack of inquiry into the defendant’s youth before it accepted the plea and imposed the recommended sentence.
The defendant also argued that the parties should be relieved of the joint sentence recommendation if he was not allowed to present the mitigating evidence and advocate for a lesser sentence.
The intent behind the Houston-Sconiers decision was prevent juvenile offenders subject to adult standard sentences from disproportionate sentencing by giving judges wide discretion in juvenile sentencing. It does not, however, require the court to independently collect mitigating evidence that is not offered by the parties when there is a joint sentencing recommendation. In light of this, the Washington Supreme Court determined the defendant had not provided any reason for the parties to be relieved of the joint sentence recommendation.
The Washington Supreme Court did disagree with the appeals court on the appropriate remedy for a Houston-Sconiers violation. The appeals court had held the defendant’s remedy in this case would be withdrawal of his plea. A motion to withdraw the plea would be a collateral attack, however. The Court noted that if there had been a Houston-Sconiers violation in this case, resentencing would have been the appropriate remedy.
In her dissent, Justice Montoya-Lewis disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that there was no Houston-Sconiers violation, finding error in the trial court’s apparent lack of knowledge it had discretion to run the weapon enhancement sentence concurrently and its failure to consider the mitigating qualities of the defendant’s youth.
There are special protections for juvenile defendants, including the Houston-Sconiers rule. If your child is facing criminal charges, an experienced Washington juvenile defense attorney can fight to protect their rights and freedom. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562.