Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the penalty classification of the underlying offense is not an essential element of bail jumping under RCW 9A.76.170. Accordingly, the classification need not be included in the charging information or the to-convict jury instruction, so long as the underlying crime is sufficiently identified. The court also rejected the defendant’s Apprendi and Blakely challenges and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the penalty classification of the underlying offense is an essential element of bail jumping that must be alleged in the charging information.
- Whether the penalty classification of the underlying offense must be included in the to-convict jury instruction for bail jumping.
- Whether the charging information and jury instruction violated Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington by failing to identify the complete classification and identity of the underlying controlled-substance offense.
Holdings
- The penalty classification of the underlying offense is not an essential element of bail jumping and need not be included in the charging information. The information was sufficient because it identified the particular underlying crime as possession of a controlled substance and alleged felony bail jumping.
- The classification of the underlying felony or misdemeanor is not an essential element of bail jumping and therefore need not be included in the to-convict jury instruction. Identifying the underlying crime is sufficient.
- The charging information and to-convict instruction did not violate Apprendi or Blakely. Williams's 43-month sentence was at the low end of the applicable standard range and did not exceed the relevant statutory maximum based on facts not found by the jury.
Key quotations
“We find that the penalty class of the underlying charge not an essential element of bail jumping and thus is not required in either the charging documents or the to-convict jury instruction.” (177)
“The underlying offense is merely a gateway to get to the separate bail jumping charge, and a simple identification of the alleged crime is sufficient.” (188)
“While the penalties for bail jumping are divided into classes, the crime itself is not.” (192)
Factual background
Williams had been charged with possession of a controlled substance after cocaine was found on his person. He failed to appear for a scheduled omnibus hearing, and a bench warrant issued. After the possession charge was dismissed following suppression of evidence, the State proceeded solely on a bail-jumping charge. The charging information identified the underlying offense as possession of a controlled substance, a felony, and the jury convicted Williams; he received a 43-month sentence.
Procedural history
Williams was charged in Snohomish County Superior Court with possession of a controlled substance and later with bail jumping after failing to appear for an omnibus hearing. After the possession charge was suppressed and dismissed, the State filed a second amended information charging only bail jumping. A jury convicted Williams, and the trial court imposed a 43-month sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.