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 Dispositions.
In 2023 legislation was enacted 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.
Rights of Crime Victims, Survivors of Victims, and Witnesses.
The Washington Constitution grants crime victims basic and fundamental rights, and additional rights are enumerated in statute. A reasonable effort must be made to ensure that victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of crimes have access to such rights in adult and juvenile criminal proceedings, and sexually violent predator or criminal insanity civil commitment proceedings.
Examples of statutory rights include the following:
Resentencing Procedures Established.
Eligibility and Petition for Resentencing.
Any person sentenced for an offense committed prior to July 23, 2023, whose offender score was increased by juvenile adjudications that are not scorable under offender score laws at the time a person files a petition as provided below, is entitled to a resentencing hearing upon the person's motions for relief if the person is currently incarcerated in total confinement with a release date no earlier than July 1, 2026, and:
Superior courts may hear a petition from an otherwise eligible petitioner outside of the above order of priority if the superior court's presiding judge determines they have capacity to do so.
If a petitioner meets the foregoing criteria, the court must grant the petitioner's motion and immediately set an expedited date for resentencing. There is a rebuttable presumption that the petitioner is entitled to be resentenced by the court. The court may deny a petition only if: (1) the petitioner has a significant disciplinary record while incarcerated; (2) the petitioner has an insignificant record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; or (3) the court determines it is more likely than not that the person will commit new felony criminal law violations.
If a petition is denied, the court must state the basis for its decision on the record, which a petitioner may appeal. A petitioner, upon a showing of changed circumstances, may file a subsequent petition no sooner than three years after denial, unless the court authorizes otherwise.
Subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this purpose, eligible incarcerated individuals unable to afford counsel are entitled to have counsel appointed for the petition and proceedings. This right does not extend to any appeal or second or subsequent petition.
Resentencing.
If the court grants a petitioner's motion, at a resentencing hearing, the petitioner must be resentenced as if any juvenile adjudications no longer scored under offender score laws in effect at the time the petition was filed 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.
Rights of Victims, Survivors of Victims, and Witnesses.
Prior to and during a resentencing hearing, victims, survivors of victims, and witnesses of the crime have the following rights:
The court may consider the impact of the petitioner's release on victims and survivors of victims of the crime for which resentencing is occurring, with special consideration given to the impacts on victims of sex offenses or domestic violence offenses.
Sentencing.
Any person sentenced on or after July 26, 2025, for an offense committed prior to July 23, 2023, and whose offender score would be increased due to juvenile adjudications that are not scorable under offender scoring laws at the time of sentencing, must have their offender score calculated based on the offender score laws in effect at the time of sentencing.
Office of Crime Victims Advocacy.
The Office of Crime Victims Advocacy (OCVA) must contract with prosecuting attorneys' offices to offer victim advocacy services including: (1) legal advocacy to understand the resentencing process and how to exercise the individual's rights; (2) safety planning; (3) options to participate in a restorative justice program with the perpetrator; and (4) case management needs that may arise. The OCVA must also contract with an entity with victim services expertise to provide training for victim advocates embedded in prosecuting attorneys' offices regarding safety planning and case management services.
Additionally, the OCVA must establish a flexible fund to support victims and survivors of victims impacted by resentencing. The fund must be used for purposes including relocation assistance due to changes in safety planning, traveling to court for resentencing hearings, and expenses for psychotherapy associated with the offense.
The substitute bill:
(In support) In 2023 the state recognized that the use of juvenile points results in unjust sentences and is not necessary for the preservation of public safety. However, we left a lot of people behind when the bill applied prospectively only, and in doing so we failed to address the historic disproportionalities caused by the prior offender scoring system. For example, almost one third of the people left behind are Native Americans, and there is an overwhelming amount of support from many tribes located in the Pacific Northwest region for this policy.
The Office of Public Defense was tasked by the Administrative Offices of the Courts with conducting an analysis of how many people this policy might effect. Statistically, about 700 to 850 people would be eligible, and on average their sentences would be reduced by about 107 months. The savings from the policy in this bill total in the millions, which could help support public defense. The bill provides staggered eligibility over a five-year period, so a strong effort is being made not to burden the court systems. Administrative concerns should not and cannot outweigh the demonstrated racial injustice which this bill directly addresses. Judges who conduct resentencings see that it is very challenging for everyone involved, including survivors, and this bill provides many resources for survivors, which there are not enough of in the current system.
Punishing people twice for crimes committed as a child does not make us safer. Patterns have emerged demonstrating the child abuse to prison pipeline. Many individuals in their early childhoods experience several forms of abuse, chronic instability, and poverty. Adolescents do not understand the consequences of their actions, and their minds take time to develop. This bill helps the process of healing our communities and individuals.
(Opposed) There is a finality in sentencing when imposed by a judge that brings an end to a lengthy legal process. This sense of closure allows families to turn the page on a painful chapter. Resentencing reopens this wound and is retraumatizing. Many families are shocked, horrified, and confused by resentencing and do not understand why. Resentencing breaks promises to victims and families, and while helpful, the work of victims advocates does not prevent pain or retraumatization that comes from resentencing.
In many instances, a sentence is the result of plea negotiations, and when these negotiations involve a victim, many dynamics are at play. For instance, the parties may be considering other family members or individuals impacted by the criminal offense, and the desire to have those individuals graduate high school or allow for time and changes in circumstances because the conduct was so harmful and damaging. Going back and undoing that creates additional harms.
This bill is bad public policy. Prosecutors already do not have capacity to charge many serious offenses and it would not be prudent for court time to be taken up with resentencing. Juvenile points only count when someone as a juvenile commits an equivalent of a felony and then that person goes on to be convicted of additional felonies as adults, and most of these juvenile points count as a fraction and fractional points round down.
(In support) Representative Chris Stearns, prime sponsor; Avery Doutre; Cassandra Butler, Collective Justice; Bryin Thomas; Jarred-Michael Erickson, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Michael McNeil, PVCA Law; Kathryn Loring, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission; Judge Breean Beggs, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission; and Larry Jefferson, Director, Washington State Office of Public Defense.
Emily Gause, WACDL and WDA; Dinah Coble; Caya Lenay, Capitol Classroom; Bryan Rodriguez, Capitol Classroom; and Kimberly Romeroi.
The second substitute bill:
(In support) This bill is about racial justice and fairness. The current system has a disparate harm on Black and Indigenous persons. The retroactive removal of juvenile points from adult sentences is a way to correct the previously acknowledged harms.
In 2023 the Legislature stopped punishing people for crimes committed as children but failed to make that policy retroactive. This bill will give approximately 800 individuals an opportunity, not a right, to go before a resentencing judge. In addition, this bill staggers the implementation stages to address the administrative burden and will end the practice of punishing people twice for crimes they committed as children. Punishing people twice does not make communities safer. This bill does not seek to excuse the crimes.
The Office of Public Defense plans to withdraw their fiscal note on the bill if an amendment is offered to eliminate the provision in the bill that requires the right to counsel.
(Opposed) Some juveniles feel like they are untouchable. However, this bill involves the resentencing of adults and not just juveniles. The Legislature needs to send a message that when individuals commit a crime that they should be held accountable for their actions. Resentencing is retraumatizing to victims and families. This bill is not victim-centered or trauma-informed. Undoing current laws breaks promises and creates uncertainty. This bill also comes with a price tag at a time when the state is facing a multibillion-dollar deficit.
(Other) The Superior Court Judges Association (SCJA) does not have an official position regarding this bill but there are several subcommittees of the SCJA that do support this bill. The SCJA does not feel this bill will create a significant financial impact on the courts. The rebuttal presumption in the bill creates a situation for the courts to consider without revictimizing victims.
(In support) Kathryn Loring, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission; Larry Jefferson, Director, Washington State Office of Public Defense; Vice Chairwoman Loni Greninger, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Chelsea Moore, ACLU-WA; and Cassandra Butler, Collective Justice.