Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by imposing exceptional consecutive sentences based on judicial findings. Relying on Oregon v. Ice, the court concluded that a jury is not required to find facts supporting consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for multiple offenses, overruled its contrary holding in In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, and reinstated Vance’s sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, rather than a trial judge, to find facts supporting an exceptional consecutive sentence for multiple offenses.
- Whether the trial court violated Vance's constitutional rights by imposing exceptional consecutive sentences based on its finding that concurrent sentences would be clearly too lenient.
Holdings
- The Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to make the factual findings necessary to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for discrete crimes.
- The trial court did not err or violate Vance's constitutional rights by imposing exceptional consecutive sentences for his offenses.
Key quotations
“Ice held that under Blakely and Apprendi, a sentencing judge does not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment by finding facts necessary to impose consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for discrete crimes.” (762)
“Under Ice, a sentencing judge, not a jury, may find facts to support consecutive sentences. Ice squarely overrules VanDelft.” (762-763)
Factual background
A Snohomish County jury convicted Robert Lee Vance of three counts of first degree child molestation, two counts of second degree child molestation, and three counts of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. The offenses involved at least four different children, and Vance had prior convictions for first degree statutory rape and indecent liberties. At resentencing, the trial court found that concurrent sentences would be clearly too lenient and imposed exceptional consecutive sentences totaling 594 months.
Procedural history
A Snohomish County jury convicted Vance of multiple child molestation and communication-with-a-minor offenses. The trial court initially imposed life imprisonment as a persistent offender, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On resentencing, the trial court imposed a 594-month exceptional consecutive sentence; the Court of Appeals initially affirmed, but after remand in light of In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, it reversed and ordered concurrent sentences. The Washington Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review after the United States Supreme Court decided Oregon v. Ice.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals was reversed, and Vance's sentence was reinstated. The court stated that remand was inappropriate because the trial court did not err; the additional issues raised by Vance were therefore moot.