State v. Mendoza

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a prosecutor’s unsupported assertions of a defendant’s criminal history are not presentence reports under former RCW 9.94A.530(2). The State must prove prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence, generally through certified records, unless the defendant affirmatively acknowledges the criminal history on the record. The court affirmed remand for resentencing and allowed the State an opportunity to present evidence of the defendants’ criminal histories.

Holdings

1. A prosecutor's statement of a defendant's criminal history is not a presentence report for purposes of former RCW 9.94A.500(1) and former RCW 9.94A.530(2).
2. A defendant's mere failure to object to a prosecutor's unsupported assertions of criminal history, and agreement with or recommendation of a sentencing range based on those assertions, do not constitute affirmative acknowledgment of the criminal history.
3. The State must establish the existence of prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence, generally through competent evidence such as certified copies of judgments and sentences, unless the defendant affirmatively acknowledges the criminal history on the record.
4. When the defendant did not specifically object at the original sentencing and the State therefore lacked an opportunity to present proof, the State may present additional evidence of criminal history at resentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a prosecutor's statement asserting a defendant's criminal history constitutes a presentence report under former RCW 9.94A.500(1) and former RCW 9.94A.530(2), such that a defendant's failure to object acknowledges the criminal history.
2. Whether a defendant affirmatively acknowledges criminal history merely by recommending or agreeing to a sentence within the sentencing range calculated from the prosecutor's asserted criminal history.
3. Whether the State must prove the existence of prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence unless the defendant affirmatively acknowledges the criminal history.
4. Whether, on remand where the defendant did not specifically object at sentencing, the State may introduce additional evidence of criminal history.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded