Sentencing.
The Sentencing Reform Act provides a determinate sentencing system in which sentencing courts generally impose sentences within a standard range. The standard range for a person is determined by reference to a grid, which provides a base sentence according to the person's offender score and the seriousness level of the present offense. The offender score is a point total based on a person's qualifying prior convictions. Certain prior convictions are excluded from offender score calculations if the person remains crime free in the community for a specified period of time following release.
Juvenile Points.
In 2023 the state passed legislation providing that a person's prior juvenile dispositions may not be included in the person's offender score calculations for any subsequent adult convictions, except for adjudications of guilt for Murder in the first degree, Murder in the second degree, and class A felony sex offenses. Out-of-state or federal convictions that would have been presumptively adjudicated in juvenile court under Washington law may not be included in the offender score unless they are comparable to Murder in the first or second degree, or a class A felony sex offense.
Rebuttable Presumption of Resentencing.
Resentencing Motion.
Beginning July 1, 2024, any person sentenced for an offense committed prior to July 23, 2023, whose offender score was increased by juvenile adjudications that are no longer scorable under state law, is entitled to a resentencing hearing upon the person's motions for relief if:
If a petitioner meets the foregoing criteria, the court must grant the petitioner's motion and immediately set an expedited date for resentencing.
Rebuttable Presumption at Resentencing Hearing.
At the resentencing hearing, there is a rebuttable presumption that a petitioner is entitled to be resentenced by the court. The court may deny a motion for resentencing only if:
If the court grants a petitioner's motion for resentencing, the petitioner must be resentenced as if any juvenile adjudications that are no longer scored under state law were not part of the petitioner's offender score at the time the original sentence was imposed. The soonest allowable release date from total confinement for a petitioner may be no sooner than six months after the date of the petitioner's resentencing hearing.
Beginning January 1, 2027, resentencing as provided above is available to any individual in total confinement with a release date of January 1, 2025, or later, whose previous offender score was increased due to any juvenile adjudications that are no longer scored under state law.
Any person sentenced on or after July 1, 2024, for an offense committed prior to July 23, 2023, must have their offender score calculated based on the law in effect as of July 1, 2024, for calculating offender scores.
The act applies retroactively to persons incarcerated on July 1, 2024, regardless of the date of the offense or conviction.
Department of Corrections Requirements.
The Department of Corrections (DOC) must:
The substitute bill does the following:
(In support) A similar bill was passed last year, concerning prospective application of what this bill aims to do now. This bill is about healing intergenerational trauma. Native Americans have suffered for numerous generations more than anyone can remember, from experiences like war, foster care, relocation programs, and more. The criminal justice system affects Native Americans disproportionately and this policy is about righting certain historical wrongs. Disproportionate sentencing is a reality and juvenile points drive this reality. This bill is really aimed at individuals who are rehabilitated and working on their rehabilitation.
Native youth are hurting from many generations of historical trauma. Adolescents do not understand the consequences of their actions fully. This bill is about restorative justice, fairness, and justice. It is known that after serving many years in prison people are much older and age is a strong factor in low recidivism. People who are released and return to the community play important roles as parents and caretakers.
This bill will help the process of healing a community and individuals. Survivor healing is not necessarily based on the continued incarceration of a person based on their juvenile mistakes.
(Opposed) The practical reality is, this state's judicial system is at a crisis point with the level of public defense and prosecution resources required for resentencing. The system is completely overwhelmed. This policy goes back and undoes promises to families and is not a victim-centric policy. Every one of these crimes has a victim behind it. Any consideration of bills requiring resentencing should also include a careful review of the impacted victims in those cases. Anything short of that minimizes the victimization our laws are trying to prevent. Additionally, because crimes are overwhelmingly intraracial, the perpetrators of crimes may end up coming out of total confinement to disproportionately victimize their same racial group.
The cost is also a concern. This bill will cost counties money, and if the state chooses to make a policy change, it should pay for the resulting costs, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, courts, clerks, and more. Prosecution alone for resentencing is around $10 million for counties. The state is paying for resentencing under the Blake decision and it should also do so here.
(In support) Representative Chris Stearns, prime sponsor; Travis Comeslast; Gracie Pakosz, University of Washington Race and Justice Clinic; Avery Doutre; André Peñalver; Katherine Beckett, University of Washington; Patrick Brown; and Misty Napeahi, Tulalip Tribes.
The second substitute bill:
(In support) Out of all the tribes in Washington, the Colville tribe has the most adult members in correctional care based upon juvenile points with 39 members currently incarcerated. The fiscal note is indeterminate, but it seems like this is a modest investment for a significant change in equity. There is support for this bill as it affects all communities of color.
In addition, there is a growing awareness that the brain does not stop developing until the age of 25, which requires some grace in how juvenile history is handled. This bill does not provide amnesty. Each resentencing judge will consider juvenile history with the discretion to move up or down the sentencing range considering all relevant content. Some resentencing cases will be difficult, but the state will save money by cutting short any unnecessary sentences.
(Opposed) There is no opposition to the policy but there is opposition regarding the fiscal impact of the bill. There are other resentencing bills being considered by the Legislature and there is concern with how to practically accomplish complying with the bill. Currently, the courts are behind in hearing cases and in some counties, additional judges are needed to handle caseloads. There is also a shortage of public defenders and prosecutors. The state needs to start thinking about how to fund counties for these new services that we are not currently providing. These individuals have already been sentenced once. Funding needs to be provided to counties for this very burdensome process.
(In support) Andre Penalver, Minority and Justice Commission; and Michael Moran, The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.