Washington State

House of Representatives

Office of Program Research

BILL

ANALYSIS

Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Committee

HB 2595

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent.

Background:

Generally, the standard sentencing range is presumed to be appropriate for the typical felony case. However, the law provides that in exceptional cases, a court has the discretion to depart from the standard range and may impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range (with a mitigating circumstance) or above the range (with an aggravating circumstance). The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) provides a list of factors that a court may consider in deciding whether to impose an exceptional sentence outside of the standard range. Some of the aggravating factors provided by the SRA include: behavior that manifested deliberate cruelty to a victim; vulnerability of a victim; sexual motivation on the part of the defendant; and an ongoing pattern of multiple incidents of abuse to a victim.

Prior to 2004 a court could sentence, on its own initiative, an offender above or below the standard range if it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that aggravating or mitigating circumstances existed. In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sentencing an offender above the standard range in this manner is unconstitutional. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). According to the court, any factor that increases an offender's sentence above the standard range, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Blakely did not affect a court's ability to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range. In 2005 the Legislature amended the procedure for imposing exceptional sentences in light of Blakely. Under this new procedure, the court no longer has the authority to impose an aggravated exceptional sentence on its own initiative in most circumstances. Instead, the prosecutor must provide notice that he or she is seeking a sentence above the standard range. The prosecutor must then prove the aggravating circumstances justifying such a sentence to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary of Bill:

A new aggravating circumstance is added to the list of circumstances that may lead to an exceptional sentence above the standard range. The offense of intercepting police communication as a means to facilitate a crime is a new aggravating circumstance. This aggravating circumstance, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt before an exceptional sentence can be imposed.