State v. Ermels

156 Wn.2d 528, 131 P.3d 299 (2006) · Supreme Court of Washington · March 16, 2006 · No. No. 76665-7

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that Joshua Ermels could not challenge his exceptional sentence under Blakely without challenging the validity of his entire plea agreement. Ermels had stipulated to facts supporting an exceptional sentence, acknowledged a legal basis for it, and waived appellate review of the sentence's basis and propriety. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the exceptional sentence.

Holdings

  1. The exceptional sentence did not violate Blakely because Ermels stipulated both to the facts supporting the sentence and to the legal basis for imposing an exceptional sentence.
  2. Ermels could not challenge the stipulations supporting his exceptional sentence without challenging the validity of the entire plea agreement.
  3. Ermels could not challenge the validity of his waiver of appellate review of the exceptional sentence without challenging the validity of the entire plea agreement.
  4. Ermels was not entitled to resentencing within the standard range because the Hughes remedy applies when an exceptional sentence rests on improper Blakely fact-finding, whereas his sentence was supported by his valid stipulations.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ermels's stipulations to the facts supporting an exceptional sentence and to the existence of a legal basis for that sentence satisfied the Sixth Amendment requirements recognized in Blakely.
  2. Whether Ermels could challenge the exceptional sentence or the validity of his appeal waiver without challenging the validity of his entire plea agreement.
  3. Whether Ermels was entitled to the Hughes remedy of resentencing within the standard range.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (11)

  • Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303, 310, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004)(followed)
  • In re Personal Restraint of Breedlove, 138 Wn.2d 298, 300, 311, 979 P.2d 417 (1999)(followed)
  • State v. Gore, 143 Wn.2d 288, 314-15, 21 P.3d 262 (2001)(discussed)
  • State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 134, 137, 140, 142, 151-52, 156, 110 P.3d 192 (2005)(distinguished)
  • State v. Evans, 154 Wn.2d 438, 444, 114 P.3d 627 (2005)(followed)
  • State v. Monroe, 126 Wn. App. 435, 437-38, 442, 109 P.3d 449 (2005)(distinguished)
  • State v. Harris, 123 Wn. App. 906, 912-13, 921, 99 P.3d 902 (2004)(distinguished)
  • State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 400, 69 P.3d 338 (2003)(followed)
  • State v. Bisson, 156 Wn.2d 507, 130 P.3d 820 (2006)(discussed)
  • Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1970)(not reached)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court