Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2001, a 17-year-old Morris Mullins killed a 78-year-old widow, Amy Davis, and was charged as an adult with rape and aggravated murder. Mullins pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for the State dropping the rape charge and not seeking the death penalty. He was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). At the sentencing, the court considered evidence of Mullins’s dysfunctional upbringing and psychological evaluation but ultimately imposed a juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentence.Mullins later challenged his sentence as unconstitutional, citing the Eighth Amendment and the Utah Constitution. In 2013, he filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied his motion in 2016, and Mullins’s appeal was delayed until 2020 due to ineffective assistance of counsel.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the sentencing court properly considered Mullins’s youth and potential for change as required by Miller and subsequent cases. The court found that the sentencing judge’s comments suggested ambiguity about Mullins’s capacity for change, undermining confidence in the constitutionality of the JLWOP sentence. The court vacated Mullins’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need to consider the constitutional implications of Mullins’s youth and potential for rehabilitation. View "Galassi v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC" on Justia Law

Mary Mercedes was accused of animal cruelty based on evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her property. Officers visited her property multiple times after receiving complaints about the condition of her animals. During these visits, Mercedes allowed the officers to view the animals, and based on their observations, a search warrant was later issued. The officers then seized the animals, and Mercedes was charged with two counts of animal cruelty.The trial court granted Mercedes's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the property visits, ruling that the officers' consent to enter was invalid without providing Ferrier warnings, which inform individuals of their right to refuse, limit, and revoke consent. The trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of probable cause. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Ferrier warnings were not required for the search of Mercedes's outdoor property and remanded the case to determine if her consent was voluntary.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Ferrier warnings are required only when officers seek to enter a person's home to conduct a warrantless search for evidence of a crime. Since the officers' visits to Mercedes's property were for investigative purposes and did not involve entering her home, Ferrier warnings were not necessary. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if Mercedes's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Mercedes" on Justia Law

Montreal Morgan participated in a home invasion robbery that resulted in the death of Fabian Alvarez. Following the incident, the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) paid $10,480 in benefits under Washington’s Crime Victims Compensation Act (CVCA) for Alvarez’s medical and funeral expenses. Morgan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. At his restitution hearing, Morgan requested a reduction in the restitution amount due to mitigating factors, but the trial court believed it lacked discretion under RCW 9.94A.753(7) and ordered the full amount of restitution requested by the State.The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which agreed that RCW 9.94A.753(7) does not afford trial courts discretion to impose less restitution than the amount of CVCA benefits paid. Morgan then petitioned for review, which was granted by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that RCW 9.94A.753(7) does not allow a trial court discretion to modify the amount of restitution owed to L&I for CVCA benefits. The court emphasized that the statutory language is unambiguous and requires the court to order restitution in the amount of benefits paid by L&I. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld Morgan’s restitution order, concluding that the trial court correctly interpreted the statute as mandating full restitution for CVCA benefits without discretion for reduction based on mitigating factors. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Anthony Vasquez was convicted of multiple offenses, including aggravated first-degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and tampering with a witness, for shooting and killing Juan Garcia in 2013. Vasquez was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the aggravated murder conviction, concluding it was not a drive-by shooting, and affirmed the other convictions. Vasquez was resentenced to 660 months. He appealed again due to a clerical error, and the Court of Appeals remanded for clarification.Following the State v. Blake decision, which held the former simple possession statute unconstitutional, Vasquez filed a CrR 7.8 motion for relief from judgment, arguing his judgment and sentence (J&S) was invalid due to a drug possession conviction. The State conceded, and Vasquez was resentenced to 620 months. The resentencing judge limited the scope of arguments, rejecting Vasquez's request to consider his youth at the time of the crime.Vasquez appealed, arguing the superior court erred by not conducting a de novo resentencing and not considering his youth. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that resentencing should be de novo unless specifically restricted by an appellate court. The court noted that the resentencing judge should exercise independent discretion and consider all relevant arguments and evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that at a resentencing hearing, the court has the same discretion as an original sentencing judge. The parties must be allowed to present mitigating and aggravating factors, and the judge must exercise independent discretion in sentencing. The case was remanded for a new resentencing hearing. View "State v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

In May 2006, Timothy Kelly was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and other burglary-related offenses. His offender scores for these offenses ranged from 11 to 14 points. Later, in November 2006, Kelly was convicted of additional offenses, including first-degree burglary and firearm-related crimes, with offender scores ranging from 21.5 to 26.5 points. In 2021, following the decision in State v. Blake, which invalidated Washington’s drug possession statute, Kelly sought resentencing. The trial court vacated his drug possession conviction and adjusted his offender scores but denied resentencing for the May 2006 convictions, as Kelly had already served his sentence.The Court of Appeals held that Kelly’s request for resentencing on his non-drug-related May 2006 convictions was time-barred under RCW 10.73.090(1) and .100. The court also ruled that the trial court lacked the authority to run Kelly’s firearm enhancements concurrently. Kelly appealed, arguing that the Blake decision was material to his sentences and that his judgment and sentence were facially invalid due to the unconstitutional conviction.The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that while Blake was a significant change in the law, it was not material to Kelly’s non-drug-related sentences because his offender scores remained above 9 points, and his standard sentencing ranges did not change. The court also held that Kelly’s judgment and sentence were not facially invalid, as the sentencing court did not exceed its authority. Additionally, the court declined to overrule State v. Brown, which held that firearm enhancements must run consecutively and cannot be modified through an exceptional sentence. The court concluded that the invited error doctrine did not preclude the State from challenging the judgment and sentence. View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In 2011, 17-year-old Darren Harris fatally stabbed an acquaintance and stole his wallet. Harris was charged with first-degree murder with a deadly weapon. After negotiations, Harris pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and first-degree robbery, with a joint sentence recommendation of 244 months. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the recommended sentence.Harris later filed a personal restraint petition, arguing for resentencing based on the State v. Houston-Sconiers decision, which requires courts to consider the mitigating qualities of youth. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous but later granted Harris an extension to appeal. The Court of Appeals found that Harris had agreed not to seek a lesser sentence and concluded that any resentencing would breach the plea agreement. The court held that Houston-Sconiers applied retroactively but did not require resentencing, suggesting Harris could withdraw his guilty plea instead.The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case and held that when a trial court accepts a plea agreement with a joint sentence recommendation, it is not required to independently consider mitigating evidence of youth under Houston-Sconiers. The court emphasized the importance of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system and concluded that no error occurred when the trial court did not inquire into Harris's youth before accepting the plea agreement. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, affirming Harris's sentence and holding that resentencing was not required. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Charles Scott Frazier was convicted of murder and arson against his father in 1989 and received a 50-year exceptional sentence. Nearly 30 years later, Frazier sought resentencing, citing new scientific evidence on adolescent brain development, arguing that this evidence should exempt his personal restraint petition (PRP) from the one-year time limit under RCW 10.73.100(1).The superior court transferred Frazier's motion to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his PRP as time-barred. Frazier then sought discretionary review from the Washington Supreme Court, which granted review solely on the issue of newly discovered evidence.The Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed that the newly discovered evidence exemption can apply to sentencing evidence, including new scientific developments. However, the court emphasized that petitioners must show they acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition, and must satisfy the five-factor test for newly discovered evidence.In Frazier's case, the court found that he did not act with reasonable diligence. Although modern scientific studies on adolescent neurodevelopment were cited as early as 2005, Frazier did not file his collateral attack until 2018. The court noted that Frazier did not provide evidence of any diligent efforts to discover the new scientific studies and file his PRP.Additionally, the court found that Frazier did not satisfy the five-factor test for newly discovered evidence. The court concluded that the new studies on adolescent brain development would not probably change the result of Frazier's sentencing, as his exceptional sentence was based on findings of cruelty and abuse of trust, which were well-supported by the record.Therefore, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Frazier's PRP as time-barred. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Frazier" on Justia Law

On June 3, 2017, Deputy Alexander Hawley of the King County Sheriff’s Office conducted an illegal stop of Malcolm Otha McGee, suspecting a drug transaction. During the stop, Hawley obtained McGee’s identity, phone number, and seized drugs. McGee agreed to become a confidential informant but never followed up. The next day, a 911 caller reported gunfire, and a month later, the body of Keith Ayson, who had a drug dealing relationship with McGee, was found. Police used evidence from the illegal stop to obtain warrants for McGee’s phone records, which linked him to the crime scene.The trial court ruled the June 3 stop was illegal and suppressed the drug evidence, dismissing the drug charge. However, it allowed the State to use evidence from the stop to establish McGee’s motive for murder. McGee’s first trial ended in a mistrial. Before the second trial, McGee moved to suppress evidence obtained from subsequent warrants, arguing they were based on the illegal stop. The trial court denied the motion, finding the evidence was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal stop. McGee was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 298 months plus a 60-month firearm enhancement.The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed McGee’s conviction, holding that the evidence obtained from the illegal stop should have been suppressed, as it was not sufficiently attenuated. The court found that subsequent warrants relied on tainted evidence, necessitating suppression of all derived evidence and McGee’s statements to police.The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the attenuation doctrine did not apply because the new criminal act did not sever the causal connection between the illegal stop and the discovery of evidence. The court emphasized the strong privacy protections under the Washington State Constitution and rejected the State’s argument to expand the attenuation doctrine. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "State v. McGee" on Justia Law

In 2003, Nicole Willyard pleaded guilty to three charges in two separate cases: obstruction, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and bail jumping. The bail jumping charge was due to her failure to appear for a hearing on the unlawful possession charge. Following the Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Blake, which declared the strict liability drug possession statute unconstitutional, Willyard sought to withdraw her guilty pleas for all charges.The trial court vacated her conviction for unlawful possession but denied her motions to withdraw the other guilty pleas. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that her motions to withdraw were time-barred. The court found that while Blake invalidated her unlawful possession conviction, it did not affect the validity of her other guilty pleas. The court also determined that the guilty pleas were part of an indivisible plea agreement, but the time bar applied to the obstruction and bail jumping charges.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Willyard's motions to withdraw her guilty pleas were time-barred. The court ruled that Blake did not open the door to untimely challenges to her guilty pleas, as subsequent changes in the law do not affect the validity of a plea that was knowing and voluntary at the time it was made. The court also concluded that unlawful possession under the former statute was not a "nonexistent crime," and thus, Willyard was not entitled to withdraw her guilty pleas on this basis. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld the trial court's denial of Willyard's motions to withdraw her guilty pleas. View "State v. Willyard" on Justia Law

Nathan Scott Smith was charged with first-degree rape of a child. During jury selection, Smith sought to remove three potential jurors for cause, including one who expressed that she might agree with other jurors if she was "on the fence" about the verdict, citing her non-confrontational nature. The trial judge denied Smith's challenge, and the juror in question sat on the jury, which returned a unanimous guilty verdict.Smith appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that the juror exhibited actual bias and should have been removed. The Court of Appeals agreed with Smith, finding that the juror's statements indicated a likelihood of actual bias, and reversed Smith's conviction. The State then sought review from the Washington Supreme Court.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Smith's for-cause challenge to the juror. The court emphasized that trial judges are best positioned to evaluate potential jurors' ability to serve impartially, given their ability to observe demeanor and tone. The Supreme Court found that the juror's statements were equivocal and did not unequivocally demonstrate actual bias. The court held that the trial judge acted within her discretion in concluding that the juror's answers reflected honest caution rather than actual bias.The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated Smith's conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge to the juror. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law