Seattle Attorneys Blog
A Washington juvenile adjudication of guilt can have lifelong consequences. Current Washington law limits the types of adjudications that can be included in calculating an offender score for a subsequent sentencing, but until recently, other non-violent juvenile adjudications could also affect an offender score. In a recent case, the state challenged a trial court’s application of the 2023 statutory amendment limiting the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in an offender score because the amendment took effect after the offense occurred.
According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery in April 2023. The legislature amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) in July 2023, which was after the incident leading to the charges and before the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing. The amended statute prohibits most juvenile adjudications from being included in a defendant’s offender score.
The defendant pleaded guilty in October. He had previously been adjudicated guilty of second degree assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile. This adjudication would have been 2 points under RCW 9.94A.525 before the amendment. The trial court, however, applied the current version of the statute because it took effect before calculation of the defendant’s offender score and his sentencing. The trial court determined the defendant had an offender score of 0, resulting in a standard sentencing range of three to nine months. The court sentenced him to five months confinement.
The state appealed.
RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) now provides that juvenile adjudications that are not murder in the first or second degree or a class A felony sex offense are not to be included in the offender score. The appeals court noted the amendment adding this provision became effective on July 23, 2023.
Pursuant to RCW 9.94A.345, sentences imposed under the Sentencing Reform Act are generally determined according to the law in effect at the time of the offense. A savings clause also provides that, following amendment or repeal of criminal or penal statute, offenses committed or penalties incurred while the law was in force are punished or enforced as thought it were still in force, notwithstanding the amendment, unless the act expressly states a contrary intention. RCW 10.01.040.
Washington case law had held that the saving clause applies to substantive changes, including punishment. Additionally, courts have stated that these statutes can be avoided if the legislature states a clear intent for the amendment to apply retroactively. Otherwise, there is a presumption that statutes apply prospectively. State v. Solomon Gibson.
If the precipitating event to the statute occurred after the amendment was enacted, the amendment may apply prospectively to a pending appeal. The Washington Supreme Court has previously determined the precipitating event was not sentencing when a new law substantively changed the terms of confinement. Instead, the court held the precipitating event was the conviction. State v. Jenks.
The appeals court recently considered whether the amendment to RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) applied in a similar case. The offense in Solomon Gibson occurred in March 2023, the statute was amended in July 2023, and the defendant was sentenced in November 2023. The defendant in that case had multiple juvenile adjudications which the trial court did not include in his offender score based on the 2023 statutory amendment. The appeals court, however, held the amendment did not apply because it was not in effect at the time of the offense. The appeals court further determined that the saving clause applied because the amendment was a substantive change in the law and concluded the law in effect at the time of the offense applied to his sentencing. State v. Soloman Gibson.
In this case, the appeals court determined the trial court had ignored RCW 9.94A.345 and RCW 10.01.040.
The defendant argued a plain reading of RCW 9.94A.525(1)(a) provided that the offender score should be calculated based on the date of sentencing. The appeals court rejected this argument, pointing out that, although the statute focuses on the date of sentencing for calculating the offender score, it does not address what law applies to sentencing.
The defendant argued alternatively that the amendment’s statement of intent showed the legislature intended it to apply to pending cases. The appeals court noted, however, that the statement of intent did not state the amendment should be applied retroactively.
The defendant also argued the statutory amendment was remedial. Remedial statutes are generally procedural. The appeals court pointed out that changes to punishment are not procedural but substantive.
The appeals court concluded the trial court erred in applying amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) and reversed the defendant’s and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Although the sentencing law has been amended, this case illustrates the long-term consequences that can follow a juvenile adjudication. If your child is facing criminal charges, seek the help of a knowledgeable Washington juvenile defense attorney. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562.