Sentencing Guidelines Commission backs mandatory dismissal for nonviolent first-time felonies, excludes stalking, DV-related and felony DUI offenses

The Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission on June 12 voted to support a recommendation that a modified first-time offender waiver (FTOW) include mandatory dismissal for qualifying nonviolent first-time felonies, while excluding several categories of offenses the commission said raise specific public-safety and victim-sensitivity concerns.

Commission staff framed the conversation around House Bill 22-17, which the commission had supported previously; members said the central change under consideration was whether successful completion of a FTOW pathway should allow avoidance of a felony conviction. After sustained debate over eligibility, judicial vs. prosecutorial discretion, victim interests and geographic variation in local practice, Commissioner Ramona Brandes moved that the commission support mandatory dismissal for nonviolent offenses but exclude felony DUI, felony violation of court-ordered domestic-violence/no-contact orders, stalking, and *** offenses. Council member Rivera seconded the motion, and the motion was amended on the floor to exclude all stalking behavior. The motion carried with a majority in favor and a number of abstentions.

Debate focused on two fault lines: whether the change should be discretionary or a strong presumption/mandate, and whether particular offenses (notably robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree) should be included. Several commissioners urged separating the topics: move forward on nonviolent offenses where there is more agreement, and delay or pilot any expansion to violent offenses. Representative Davis said she favored a mandatory approach for nonviolent offenses but opposed expanding FTOW eligibility to violent offenses, citing public safety and examples of prior egregious outcomes when sentencing alternatives were applied in violent cases.

Thurston County presenters and other commissioners emphasized that local implementation depends on elected-prosecutor support and local capacity. One commissioner (a Thurston County prosecutor) raised a structural concern that some prosecutors’ associations would resist giving courts unilateral authority to dismiss filed felony cases and characterized the change as a shift in charging power; others responded that when a case is filed the ultimate decision on disposition rests with the court and that statutory guidance already limits judicial discretion through eligibility criteria and program requirements.

The commission directed staff to include the discussion, the commission’s reservations, and the motion result in the report to the legislature. The motion language and exclusions will be included in the commission’s narrative for the next legislative cycle; commissioners indicated they may refine exclusions or consider pilot approaches in follow-up work.

Vote: the motion passed after amendment; commissioners reported a majority in favor with several abstentions (commission staff recorded the vote and will include the official roll in the meeting minutes and legislative report).