Panel Debates HB 1178 to End Mandatory Stacking of Weapon Enhancements and Make Enhancements Eligible for Earned Release

On Jan. 20, 2025 the House Community Safety Committee heard public testimony on House Bill 1178, which would reform sentencing enhancements under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act by eliminating particular enhancements, removing mandatory consecutive application in many cases (so-called “stacking”), and making enhancements eligible for partial confinement and earned early release in most circumstances.

Staff framed the bill as a package of changes recommended by the Criminal Sentencing Task Force and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission. As summarized by committee staff: the bill would (a) eliminate two specific enhancements (the protected‑zone controlled‑substances enhancement and the enhancement for involving a minor in a criminal‑street‑gang related felony), (b) remove mandatory consecutive service for firearms/deadly‑weapon enhancements and certain meth‑manufacture‑in‑presence‑of‑minor enhancements, and (c) make many enhancements eligible for partial confinement and earned early release; the bill retains an exception that an impaired‑driving enhancement must be served in total confinement if the person has two or more prior alcohol/drug convictions or has certain vehicular homicide DUI convictions.

Witnesses supporting the bill emphasized empirical research and agency reports showing racial disproportionalities and the role enhancements play in producing very long sentences. Dr. Carl Jones, a former DOC principal research statistician, told the committee that enhancements and stacking are the mechanism driving racially disparate sentence lengths, and Department of Corrections and independent research found Black and Latino defendants receive firearm and weapon enhancement at disproportionately higher rates. Heather Evans (University of Washington) and Dr. Lauren Knuth Peterson (OFM Public Safety Policy and Research Center) cited analyses showing Black defendants are overrepresented among cases with weapons enhancements and that weapons enhancements have driven a portion of the growth in very long prison terms.

Advocates and legal aid groups — including the Washington Defender Association, TeamChild, the League of Women Voters, and others — argued for judicial discretion and for making enhancements eligible for earned release so that individuals who engage in programming can gain partial confinement. Percy Levy, a public‑outreach specialist with the WDA and a formerly incarcerated person, described sentences he and others faced under mandatory stacking and said judges had told him they would have sentenced differently if they had discretion.

Law‑enforcement representatives and prosecutors expressed concern and urged negotiation. James McMahon (Assoc. of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs) and Prosecuting Attorneys Association executive director Russell Brown said the committee should be cautious about removing strict rules for firearm enhancements; they signaled willingness to negotiate guardrails such as preserving consecutive time where multiple victims were harmed or where repeated firearm use occurred. The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys also raised technical drafting questions about whether concurrent application could unintentionally eliminate the enhancement’s impact in multi‑count cases if not carefully structured.

Several families and directly impacted people gave personal accounts of long sentences produced by stacked enhancements. Janice Cruz described a husband whose sentence was extended by 15 years in enhancements even though the presiding judge said he would not have stacked the enhancements if given discretion.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Committee members and stakeholders indicated substantial interest in negotiating technical statutory language and guardrails that preserve public safety while restoring judicial discretion and addressing documented racial disparities.