Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Sentencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington Supreme Court hears Amston challenge to offender-score sentencing rules
Summary
The Washington Supreme Court heard oral argument in State v. Walter Scott Amston over whether the state can relitigate sentencing facts under the Sentencing Reform Act or whether such facts must be proved to a jury under Apprendi and Erlanger; the case was submitted.
The Washington State Supreme Court heard argument May 21 in State of Washington v. Walter Scott Amston over whether facts used to raise a defendant—rom one sentencing range to another must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or whether a judge may rely on certified records and documentary evidence at sentencing.
In a 13-minute opening, defense attorney Greg Link told the justices that "the state did not prove the facts necessary to support Mr. Amston's sentence" and argued that, because the prosecutor failed to prove elements of the greater offense, "double jeopardy bars the ability to try again." Link framed the issue through Erlanger and the Apprendi line of cases, saying those precedents require courts to treat sentencing-enhancing facts as elements when they increase punishment.
Ben Nicholl, arguing for the state, told the court that "other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases punishment beyond the otherwise available range must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt," but maintained Washington's offender-score statute does not violate that rule. Nicholl said (1) prior convictions establish the ceiling for punishment and (2) sentencing courts generally consult ministerial, documentary data (judgments, dates of conviction or release) rather than relitigating the facts underlying prior convictions.
Justices repeatedly pressed both sides on the statutory mechanics and constitutional implications. One Justice asked whether a due-process concern about the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) could resolve the case without reaching double-jeopardy issues; Link replied that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are implicated and that Mr. Amston is "entitled to a sentence based on the jury's verdict alone." The state countered that some components of the SRA are mitigative or administrative and therefore do not trigger Apprendi scrutiny.
Discussion also focused on the SRA's "washout" provision (cited in argument as 5.25.2) and the distinction between legal and factual comparability of out-of-state convictions. Nicholl argued the record suggests Mr. Amston can reach a maximum offender score based on his Washington convictions alone and that the case is a poor vehicle for resolving broad factual-comparability questions because the Court of Appeals already vacated his earlier sentence.
Counsel for both sides cited precedent including Erlanger, Apprendi, Blakely v. Washington, and related Washington decisions. The state urged the court to avoid a broad facial invalidation of the statute, saying a facial challenge requires showing the statute is unconstitutional in every circumstance. Defense counsel urged reversal and resentencing limited to what the jury's verdict supports.
The court thanked counsel, submitted the case for decision and adjourned. The Court did not announce a decision at the hearing; no vote or order was issued from the bench.
The immediate next step is publication of an opinion or order at a later date; the argument transcript shows the issue centers on whether routine offender-score calculations require jury findings when they effectively raise the statutory punishment ceiling.
