When Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wynne sentenced Victor David in 2001, he took into account the many years that David spent abusing and neglecting his wife, Linda David.
Under the state sentencing guidelines, his second-degree assault conviction normally would have resulted in a maximum sentence of about 18 months. But Wynne said that because the victim never would recover and live normally, that sentence was too short.
Wynne found grounds for an exception to Washington state’s 20-year-old Sentencing Reform Act, which allowed him to go outside the normal sentencing range.
David was sentenced to 10 years in prison, more than six times as long than the state sentencing guideline.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court says the unusually long sentence – and thousands of other Washington exceptional sentences – is unconstitutional because a jury was not involved in the sentencing decision.
By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned the sentence Thursday of Ralph Howard Blakely, who got more than seven years in prison for kidnapping his estranged wife in 1998. A judge had said the four-year term called for in state sentencing guidelines was too lenient because Blakely acted with “deliberate cruelty” that merited a longer term.
The high court threw out the part of the state law that allowed judges to decide whether a defendant deserved an exceptionally high sentence.
Juries should make that decision instead, the high court said.
Some in the criminal justice system are preparing for a deluge of petitions for shorter terms by potentially thousands, such as David, who got exceptionally long sentences.
Opinions vary, but what seems certain is:
* The exceptional sentence, no matter how disgusting the crime, is out unless or until the Legislature acts to correct problems with the law.
* Even if the Legislature approves an appropriate way to hand out exceptional sentences, it would mean longer trials and would take power away from trial judges. Prosecutors and jurors would have more power.
* A lot of criminals, perhaps thousands, will try their luck in state and federal courts to get long terms shortened.
In 2003, there were 27,213 felony convictions in Washington, said Teresa Waller, research analyst for the state Sentencing Guideline Commission. Of those, 658, or about 2.4 percent, were above the sentencing range.
“This is something the Legislature has to look at promptly,” said Seth Fine of the Snohomish County prosecutor’s appeal unit. “The impact on the structure of sentencing in the state is immense.”
Chief criminal deputy prosecutor Mark Roe said local judges are doing just fine in their sentencing decisions. He predicted the ruling will make prosecuting some criminals more time consuming, burdensome and complex – and thus, more expensive.
To get an exceptional sentence, prosecutors will have to file advance notice of what they believe are “aggravating” circumstances that warrant a longer sentence, said Bill Jaquette, who heads the Snohomish County Public Defender Office.
Then the prosecutors will have to get a jury to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances deserve a long sentence.
There’s no structure in state law for doing that now, said defense attorney Lenell Nussbaum, of Seattle. That’s why exceptionally long terms are on hold unless the law is changed.
“The court reaffirmed the right to a jury trial on every element that determines the maximum sentence in a given case,” she said.
She predicted a lot of appeals now because the ruling “invalidates every contested exceptional sentence.”
Jaquette has some reservations about juries overreacting, but overall he’s happy. The decision “recognizes important rights,” Jaquette said. “Yes, it’s going to create a mess. But it will avoid any surprise exceptional sentences.”
Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
