FILED
AUG. 15, 2013
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 29931-7-111
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
CHRISTIAN VERN WILLIAMS, ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
BROWN, J. - Christian Vern Williams appeals the sentencing court's decision to
count his prior burglary and robbery convictions separately in calculating his offender
score. He contends the court abused its discretion and misapplied the law by relying on
the burglary antimerger statute, RCW 9A.52.050, and overlooking the same criminal
conduct test, RCW 9.94A.525(5)(a)(i) and .589(1 )(a). We hold as a matter of first
impression that a current sentencing court lacks discretion to count prior convictions
separately under the burglary antimerger statute and must do so, if at all, under the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW. Accordingly, we reverse
and remand for resentencing.
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
FACTS
In October 2010, a jury found Mr. Williams guilty of residential burglary and first
degree trafficking in stolen property. The sentencing court calculated his offender score
as seven by separately counting his April 2004 convictions for first degree burglary and
first degree robbery, each of which he committed in December 2003. The court applied
the burglary antimerger statute, apparently viewing it as mandatory, instead of applying
the same criminal conduct test. Mr. Williams appealed. The sole remaining dispute
after our commissioner's motion-on-the-merits ruling concerns Mr. Williams's offender
score calculation. Because the trial court failed to conduct a same criminal conduct
analysis as required by RCW 9.94A525(5)(a)(i) and .589(1 )(a), we reverse and remand
for the trial court to perform that analysis.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the sentencing court erred by deciding to count Mr.
Williams's prior burglary and robbery convictions separately in calculating his offender
score. He contends the court abused its discretion and misapplied the law in relying on
the burglary antimerger statute to the exclusion of the same criminal conduct test.
We review a discretionary sentencing decision made under the SRA for abuse of
discretion or misapplication of law. State v. Elliott, 114 Wn.2d 6, 17,785 P.2d 440
(1990). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is "manifestly unreasonable,"
based on "untenable grounds," or made for "untenable reasons." State ex reI. Carroll v.
Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,26,482 P.2d 775 (1971); see State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647,
654,71 P.3d 638 (2003) ("A decision is based on untenable grounds or made for
2
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
untenable reasons if it rests on facts unsupported in the record or was reached by
applying the wrong legal standard. A decision is manifestly unreasonable if the court,
despite applying the correctlegal standard to the supported facts, adopts a view that no
reasonable person would take, and arrives at a decision outside the range of acceptable
choices." (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We interpret a statute
de novo. State v. Bright, 129 Wn.2d 257, 265, 916 P.2d 922 (1996). In doing so, we
"ascertain and carry out" our legislature's intent. State v. Neher, 112 Wn.2d 347, 350,
771 P.2d 330 (1989).
A current sentencing court must calculate an offender score based on an
offender's "other current and prior convictions." RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). If a prior
sentencing court found multiple offenses "encompass the same criminal conduct," the
current sentencing court must count those prior convictions as one offense. RCW
9.94A.525(5)(a)(i). If the prior sentencing court did not make this finding, but
nonetheless ordered the offender to serve the sentences concurrently, the current
sentencing court must independently evaluate whether those prior convictions
"encompass the same criminal conduct" and, if they do, must count them as one
offense. /d.; RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a); State v. Tomgren, 147 Wn. App. 556, 563, 196
P.3d 742 (2008) ("A sentencing court ... must apply the same criminal conduct test to
multiple prior convictions that a court has not already concluded amount to the same
criminal conduct. The court has no discretion on this." (citation omitted) (citing RCW
9.94A.525(5)(a)(i); State v. Reinhart, 77 Wn. App. 454, 459, 891 P.2d 735 (1995); State
v. Lara, 66 Wn. App. 927,931-32,834 P.2d 70 (1992)), abrogated on other grounds by
3
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
State v. Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 295 P.3d 219 (2013).1 The offender bears the
burden of proving offenses encompass the same criminal conduct. Graciano, 176
Wn.2d at 539.
Here, the prior sentencing court did not find Mr. Williams's 2004 burglary and
robbery convictions encompass the same criminal conduct. But it nonetheless ordered
him to serve his sentences concurrently.2 Under these circumstances, the current
sentencing court needed to apply the same criminal conduct test. See RCW
9.94A525(5)(a)(i), .589(1)(a); Tomgren, 147 Wn. App. at 563. It did not. While we
think it doubtful that Mr. Williams met his burden of proof, we cannot decide this issue
because the trial court failed to exercise discretion required under the same criminal
conduct test. See Lara, 66 Wn. App. at 932 (remanding for resentencing because the
trial court failed to exercise discretion required under the portion of former RCW
9.94A360(6)(a) (1988) our legislature later amended to incorporate the same criminal
conduct test); State v. Wright, 76 Wn. App. 811,829, 888 P.2d 1214 (1995) (same);
1 Prior convictions encompass the same criminal conduct if they "require the
same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same
victim." RCW 9.94A589(1)(a); see RCW 9.94A525(5)(a)(i). Whether offenses involve
the same criminal ihtent depends on "the extent to which the criminal intent, as
objectively viewed, changed from one crime to the next." State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d
207,215, 743 P.2d 1237,749 P.2d 160 (1987). This analysis considers "whether one
crime furthered the other," id., or the two were "part of a recognizable scheme or plan."
State v. Lewis, 115 Wn.2d 294,302,797 P.2d 1141 (1990). If any of these statutory
elements are missing, the trial court must count the offenses separately in calculating
an offender score. State v. Lessley, 118 Wn.2d 773, 778, 827 P.2d 996 (1992).
2 In arguing to the current sentencing court, the parties noted the 2004
sentencing court did not check the same criminal conduct box on Mr. Williams's
judgment and sentence but imposed concurrent imprisonment terms totaling 78 months.
4
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
Reinhart, 77 Wn. App. at 459 (same); State v. McCraw, 127 Wn.2d 281,287-88,898
P.2d 838 (1995) (approving Lara, Wright, and Reinhart).
Instead of applying the same criminal conduct test, the current sentencing court
relied solely on the burglary antimerger statute, which provides, "Every person who, in
the commission of a burglary shall commit any other crime, may be punished therefore
as well as for the burglary, and may be prosecuted for each crime separately." RCW
9A.52.050. In State v. Lessley, 118 Wn.2d 773, 779-82,827 P.2d 996 (1992), our
Supreme Court held this statute grants a current sentencing court discretion, in
calculating an offender score, to count current burglary and non-burglary convictions
separately even if they encompass the same criminal conduct. 3 We are unaware of any
reported decision extending this holding to a current sentencing court's treatment of
prior convictions. 4 Therefore, we must interpret the statute.
Certainly, if a person commits a burglary simultaneously with another crime, the
statute allows the State to separately "prosecute[]" both current offenses. RCW
9A.52.050. If a judge or jury then finds the defendant guilty, the statute allows a current
sentencing court to separately "punish[]" both current convictions, including by counting
them separately in calculating an offender score. Id.; Lessley, 118 Wn.2d at 779-82.
But the statute provides no direction to a later sentencing court regarding how it may
3 Relying on the State's arguments. the current sentencing court apparently
believed the burglary anti merger statute required it to count Mr. Williams's 2004
convictions separately. To the extent the court viewed applying the statute as
mandatory. it erred.
4 Our Supreme Court declined to reach this issue in In re Pers. Restraint of
Connick. 144 Wn.2d 442, 464.28 P.3d 729 (2001).
5
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
treat prior convictions.
We hold the burglary antimerger statute's plain language applies solely to current
offenses before a current sentencing court. Our interpretation comports with logic.
While sentences must be proportionate to criminal history, our legislature has designed
them to punish current, not prior offenses. See RCW 9.94A.01 0(1); LAws OF 2002, ch.
107, § 1 ("[TJhe provisions of the [8RA] act upon and punish only current conduct; the
[8RA] does not act upon or alter the punishment for prior convictions." (citing In re Pers.
Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353,362-64,759 P.2d 436 (1988))). And, our
legislature has established the 8RA, not the burglary antimerger statute, as the proper
means for ensuring sentences are proportionate to criminal history. Compare RCW
9.94A.010(1). with RCW 9A.04.020. See generally RCW 9.94A.030(11), .500(1), .525
.530; LAws OF 2008, ch. 231, § 1.
Applying this interpretation, we conclude the current sentencing court erred by
relying on the burglary antimerger statute to count Mr. Williams's 2004 burglary and
robbery convictions separately in calculating his offender score. Instead, the court
needed to apply the same criminal conduct test. Because the court applied the wrong
legal standard, it exercised its discretion on untenable grounds or reasons. Therefore,
the court abused its discretion and misapplied the law.
i
6
l
I
!
!
,
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
1CONCUR:
7
No. 29931-7-III
KORSMO, C,J. (dissenting) -The majority opinion runs afoul of State v. Lessley,
118 Wn.2d 773,827 P.2d 996 (1992), which is an adequate basis to reject appellant's
position. More fundamentally, even while properly acknowledging that it was his burden
to establish that the 2004 crimes constituted the same criminal conduct, the opinion
overlooks the fact that Mr. Christian Williams never attempted to meet the burden. The
sentence should be affirmed.
As to the latter point first, State v. Graciano, 176 Wn.2d 531, 539,295 P.3d 219
(2013), clearly places the burden on Mr. Williams to establish that the 2004 crimes
constituted the same criminal conduct. At sentencing, the prosecutor presented the 2004
judgment and sentence for the purpose of showing that Judge Baker had not found the
burglary and robbery convictions to be the same criminal conduct and had used an
offender score of"3" for each offense even though there were only two prior convictions.
Mr. Williams thereafter did not present argument suggesting that the two crimes occurred
at the same time and place or that they involved the same victim(s) and the same criminal
intent; rather, he argued that it was unclear how Judge Baker had treated them. 1 There
I The defense's confusion was understandable because the 2004 offender score of
"3" was not possible for the first degree robbery offense under any scenario. In
sentencing that offense, the two prior crimes each scored one point and the current first
degree burglary would be worth two points, resulting in an offender score of "4" unless
the burglary was not counted at all, which would mean the score was "2." Former RCW
9.94A.525(8) (2003). The first degree burglary score could have been "3" if the robbery
I
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams I
~
simply was no evidence presented, nor any argument made, that the two offenses
somehow satisfied the RCW 9.94A.589(l) standard. 2
Since the defense failed to meet its burden, Graciano requires rejection of the
argument and there is no need to discuss the burglary anti-merger statute and its
application to this case. Nonetheless, since the majority desires to address the statute, I,
will do so too, although in a rather cursory manner. The short answer to the majority's
I
position is that Lessley faced the same ultimate task as what the trial court faced here
application of the same criminal conduct test of State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d 207,215,
749 P.2d 160 (1987), and RCW 9.94A.589(1). The fact that the test has to be applied to
the prior offenses in this case does not make it significantly different than Lessley, which
had to apply that statute to current offenses. The trial judge in both instances had the
same duty to look at whether the offenses constituted the same criminal conduct issue. In
Lessley our court decided that the anti-merger statute could be applied to essentially
trump the need to look at same criminal conduct as it related to the burglary offense.
was treated as same criminal conduct because the prior burglary counted two points and
the drug conviction counted one point. If the robbery had counted, it would have resulted
in an offender score of"5" for the offense. Former RCW 9.94A.525(10) (2003).
2 Curiously, the majority repeatedly mentions that the 2004 offenses were served
concurrently as if that is a fact of consequence to the issue at hand in this proceeding.
Since they were sentenced at the same time, they needed to be served concurrently.
RCW 9.94A.589(l). The information does not inform on the question of whether they
are the same criminal conduct.
2 )
I
p
No. 29931-7-111
State v. Williams
There is no way to meaningfully distinguish this case. If it was permissible in Lessley, it
had to be permissible here. 3 Since this court lacks the power4 to overturn Lessley, the
trial judge could properly apply the anti-merger statute to the 2004 crimes. 5
This case should be affirmed for the simple reason that Mr. Williams never
attempted to meet his burden under Graciano and therefore the alleged legal error is
simply not relevant. If we reach the same criminal conduct issue, however, this case
cannot be meaningfully distinguished from Lessley and the trial judge did not err in
applying the anti-merger statute to the prior offenses.
F or both reasons, I respectfully dissent.
orsmo, C.J.
3 Even appellant's counsel recognizes that the anti-merger statute could be applied
to prior offenses. See Br. of Appellant at 9. The majority cites no authority suggesting
the statute was inapplicable.
4 .
E.g., State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 487,681 P.2d 227 (1984).
5 It is unclear from my reading of the judge's ruling whether he actually did apply
the anti-merger statute to the 2004 convictions since that discussion appears during the
analysis of the same criminal conduct argument relating to the two current offenses.
However, both parties read the transcript as if the judge did do so; that is a plausible
interpretation.
3
I
I
l