FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED
FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON
IN CLERK’S OFFICE APRIL 15, 2021
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON
APRIL 15, 2021
SUSAN L. CARLSON
SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Respondent, ) No. 96143-3
)
v. )
) En Banc
D.L., )
) Filed : April 15, 2021
Petitioner. )
)
OWENS, J. ― D.L., a 14-year-old boy, pleaded guilty to a single count of child
molestation. The commissioner sentenced D.L. to an extended sentence known as a
manifest injustice disposition. By pleading guilty, D.L. agreed that the court could
use the probable cause affidavit to establish the facts that constituted D.L’s
conviction. But when the court imposed the manifest injustice disposition, it relied on
three facts that were not in the probable cause affidavit: (1) that D.L.’s victim had a
cognitive disability, (2) that D.L. refused accountability, and (3) that D.L. would not
cooperate with treatment. This case asks whether due process requires that the State
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
give a juvenile notice of these specific facts before pleading guilty if they will be used
to justify a manifest injustice disposition.
Ultimately, due process requires that juveniles be treated in a manner that is
fundamentally fair. As evidenced by our notice requirements in Washington case law
and statutes, adequate notice of factual allegations ensures fairness by allowing
defendants to make timely, informed, and strategic decisions. Allowing introduction
of facts after a plea to justify a longer sentence serves only to undermine the critical
strategic decision to forgo trial.
Without adequate notice, juveniles and their attorneys cannot predict which
facts might be unearthed and weaponized to extend the juvenile’s sentence after the
plea. This lack of notice leaves juveniles unable to adequately assess the risk of
receiving a disposition outside of the standard range, which could mean confinement
until age 21 in some cases. Further, it allows the State to essentially upgrade the
charge after already having already locked the juvenile into a guilty plea. This lack of
notice causes unfair surprise to young defendants and serves only to undermine
juveniles’ and their families’ trust in our juvenile justice system. Our adult defendants
in Washington are not treated so unfairly and neither should we so treat our juveniles.
Therefore, we hold today that manifest injustice dispositions cannot be based
on facts that the juvenile did not have notice of at the time of plea. The State failed to
give D.L. notice of several key facts that supported D.L.’s manifest injustice
2
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
disposition. As a result, the manifest injustice disposition was improperly imposed.
As D.L. has already served his sentence and this case is technically moot, we merely
resolve this legal issue without modifying D.L.’s sentence.1 We reverse the Court of
Appeals.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 2017, D.L., a 14-year-old boy, was charged with three counts of first degree
rape and one count of attempted first degree rape of his 5-year-old half brother. At
the time, D.L. had no prior criminal history. D.L. successfully negotiated a plea deal
with the prosecutor, reducing the charges to a single count of first degree attempted
child molestation. D.L. stipulated in his plea agreement that the trial court could use
the probable cause statement to determine the facts that supported his conviction.
For sentencing, the prosecutor and defense agreed to recommend a special sex
offender disposition alternative (SSODA) if D.L. qualified; otherwise, the plea
agreement stated that the prosecutor would recommend a sentence within the statutory
range of 15 to 36 weeks. During the plea colloquy, the court informed D.L. that it
could impose a sentence outside of the standard range and commit D.L. to a facility
until age 21. Sentencing was then scheduled to occur after D.L. completed the
screening for the SSODA.
1
State v. B.O.J., 194 Wn.2d 314, 331, 449 P.3d 1006 (2019).
3
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
The screening process did not go well for D.L. D.L. missed treatment dates,
refused to cooperate, and denied accountability. As a result, neither the State nor D.L.
recommended the SSODA. In addition, D.L.’s probation officer filed a notice of
intent to seek a manifest injustice disposition and filed a supporting memorandum
contrary to the prosecutor’s recommendation. The memorandum alleged, among
other things, (1) that the victim was cognitively impaired from a lack of oxygen at
birth, (2) that D.L. denied accountability, and (3) that D.L. refused to cooperate during
the SSODA screening process. None of these facts were contained in the probable
cause statement. D.L.’s attorney filed a memorandum in response.
At sentencing, two probation officers testified and D.L.’s attorney cross-
examined them. The commissioner imposed a manifest injustice disposition and
ordered D.L. to 40 weeks in a juvenile detention center—4 weeks beyond the standard
range. The commissioner entered findings on the record that a manifest injustice
disposition was necessary because (1) the victim was particularly vulnerable due to
his age and developmental disability and (2) D.L. was likely to reoffend based on his
postconviction denial of the acts and lack of cooperation during screening. D.L.
appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, although noting that this absence of
notice draws strong concerns regarding “the appearance of fairness.” State v. Loomer,
No. 77360-7-I, slip op. at 3 (Wash. Ct. App. Jun 25, 2018) (unpublished),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/773607.pdf. We grant review as to whether
4
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
D.L.’s due process right to notice was violated when he received a manifest injustice
disposition based on facts that he did not have notice of at the time of plea.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED
Before entering a plea, are juveniles entitled to notice of all facts—existing at the
time of plea—that will be used to support an extended sentence?
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Fundamental Fairness Standard Governs Juvenile Constitutional
Rights
Whether juveniles have a constitutional right to notice of the specific facts
that support a manifest injustice disposition is an issue of state and federal
constitutional law that we review de novo. State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wn.2d 528,
531, 98 P.3d 1190 (2004) (citing City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664,
668, 91 P.3d 875 (2004)).
D.L. received a manifest injustice disposition that was four weeks longer than the
standard range sentence for the crime. Manifest injustice dispositions allow a court to
extend a juvenile’s sentence upward or downward from a standard range sentence. See
RCW 13.40.020(19). A manifest injustice disposition requires a finding “that [the
standard range disposition] would either impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or
would impose a serious, and clear danger to society.” Id. The upward maximum of a
manifest injustice disposition is confinement until age 21. RCW 13.40.300 (1).
5
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
Juveniles are entitled to adequate notice “‘of the alleged misconduct with
particularity’” that “must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court
proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded.” In re Gault,
387 U.S. 1, 33, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967) (quoting PRESIDENT’S COMM’N
ON LAW ENF’T & ADMIN. OF JUSTICE, THE CHALLENGE OF CRIME IN A FREE SOCIETY
87 (1967)). The question is whether this right extends to facts that will be used to
support a manifest injustice disposition. Although Gault did not squarely address this
issue, this court and the United States Supreme Court have nonetheless relied on Gault
and its successor In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970),
to extend due process2 rights to juveniles in a variety of contexts. In extending such
rights, we have asked whether the right at issue is one that ensures procedures are
“fundamentally fair”3 and adheres to notions of “fair play.” McKeiver v. Pennsylvania,
403 U.S. 528, 543, 91 S. Ct. 1976, 29 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1971); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S.
253, 263, 104 S. Ct. 2403, 81 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1984); State v. Quiroz, 107 Wn.2d 791,
798, 733 P.2d 963 (1987) (quoting Sheppard v. Rhay, 73 Wn.2d 734, 737, 440 P.2d 422
2
We distinguish D.L.’s case from State v. T.J.S.-M., 193 Wn.2d 450, 462, 441 P.3d 1181 (2019),
as T.J.S.-M. examined whether there was a due process liberty interest in the sentencing scheme
itself. Here, we examine what notice must be given before entry of a plea.
3
We decline to address the applicability of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct.
2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), to the juvenile context as we resolve this case on the issue of
ensuring fundamental fairness.
6
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
(1968)). Accordingly, we must ask whether providing notice of facts used to support a
manifest injustice disposition is required to ensure fundamental fairness.
B. Juveniles Are Deprived of Fundamental Fairness When a Court Imposes a
Manifest Injustice Disposition Based on Facts That the Juvenile Did Not
Have Notice of at the Time of Plea
The quintessential requirement of notice is that it must be given at a sufficiently
meaningful time so as not to prejudice the defendant. In all cases, the earlier the notice,
the better for the defendant, as the defendant can use this time to prepare a strategy, find
witnesses, and most effectively meet the charges. But even before these actions must be
taken, the notice of the specific factual allegations allows the defendant to answer the
threshold question of whether to plead guilty or proceed to trial. This proposition has
been frequently articulated as requiring the opportunity to “‘mount an adequate
defense.’” State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269, 277, 274 P.3d 358 (2012) (quoting State v.
Schaffer, 120 Wn.2d 616, 620, 845 P.2d 281 (1993)). While we have extensive law
dictating what this requirement looks like for adults, we have yet to address juveniles’
right to notice of specific facts that could support a manifest injustice disposition.
From our case law and statutes, we can see in the adult context that timely notice
requirements protect the defendant’s ability to make strategic defensive decisions. First
and foremost, we note that this case would not arise in the adult context because adults
have the right to notice of all aggravating factors before they begin trial or enter a plea.
RCW 9.94A.537(1). This notice protection ensures that prosecutors will not
7
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
purposefully withhold new facts that would support an extended sentence, only to
introduce them later at trial or sentencing after a defendant has already made the
decision whether to plead. Another noteworthy benefit of notice is that prosecutors are
typically prohibited from amending charges “‘unless the amendment is to a lesser degree
of the same charge or a lesser included offense’” after the State rests its case. Schaffer,
120 Wn.2d at 620 (quoting State v. Pelkey, 109 Wn.2d 484, 491, 745 P.2d 854 (1987)).
In this context, amendments after the State rests its case are allowed only where they do
not mislead or surprise the defendant. Ultimately, such surprise tactics deprive
defendants of making a sufficiently informed decision whether to plead or continue to
trial.
Another example of our protection of the right to make an adequately informed
decision to plead can be seen in State v. Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d 428, 180 P.3d 1276
(2008). There, we prohibited the prosecutor from changing the sentencing enhancer at
sentencing, although the facts proved at trial would have clearly supported a firearm
enhancement. Id. at 431-32, 441. In Recuenco, the prosecutor proved there was a gun,
but because the prosecutor elected a deadly weapons enhancement, the prosecutor was
unable to switch the enhancement to a firearm enhancement, which carried a longer
sentence. Id. at 441. Again, Recuenco may have fundamentally altered his strategy had
he known that the prosecution sought a firearm enhancement instead of a deadly
weapons enhancement. The decision of what facts to contest might have been
8
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
fundamentally motivated by the prosecutor’s charging decision—thus, allowing the
prosecutor to change the charge would have undermined Recuenco’s tactical decisions
and deprived him of the opportunity to mount an adequate defense.
All of these concerns of fairness that apply to adults apply equally to juveniles.
Late notice prohibits juveniles from making informed strategic decisions and
undermines those they have already made. If we find that such notice is required to
protect an adult’s right to mount an adequate defense, it is troubling to think that
juveniles, lacking the experience, maturity, and knowledge of adults, should receive less
notice. Bearing these considerations in mind, we must first determine whether a juvenile
enjoys the same constitutional right to notice as an adult. We do so by asking whether
depriving juveniles of such notice deprives them of “fundamental fairness.” McKeiver,
403 U.S. at 543.
In addressing “fundamental fairness,” we focus on the point in time when D.L.
entered his plea. When D.L. entered his plea, he did so based on a specific set of
stipulated facts found in the probable cause statement. Neither D.L. nor his attorney
would have been able to predict that the State would rely on the victim’s alleged
cognitive impairment to justify a manifest injustice disposition.
If we allow prosecutors and probation officers to embark on an inquisition for
damaging facts to support a manifest injustice disposition, it is clear that no juvenile’s
attorney would ever be able to assess the risk of receiving a manifest injustice
9
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
disposition. Juveniles such as D.L. would be pleading blindly, not knowing which
extrinsic facts might be unearthed that could justify confinement until age 21. We do
not treat adults so harshly in Washington State and neither should we so harshly treat our
youth. Permitting this practice further serves to undermine the benefits of the plea
bargaining process, which protects judicial and prosecutorial resources, ensures a
predictable result, and emphasizes accountability. Accordingly, we hold that the court
improperly considered the victim’s cognitive impairment when D.L. did not have notice
that this fact might support a manifest injustice disposition.
We additionally hold that facts arising after the plea, like D.L.’s denial of
responsibility and refusal of treatment, cannot be used to justify a manifest injustice
disposition. As in Recuenco, the State here should similarly be bound to its election of
charges. Had the State wanted to seek a greater confinement range, it could have
charged D.L. differently. It chose not to. While upward manifest injustice dispositions
may be imposed to protect the health and safety of the juvenile and the community, the
most relevant factors in such a finding primarily relate to the circumstances surrounding
the immediate crime as well as the juvenile’s dispositional history. See RCW
13.40.150(3)(i). Certainly, facts arising after the plea may be relevant for dispositional
purposes for determining a sentence within the standard range, but invocation of these
facts without any notice to justify a longer sentence clearly runs afoul of the juvenile’s
10
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
right to fundamental fairness. As such, the court also improperly relied on D.L.’s denial
and lack of cooperation to justify the manifest injustice disposition.
C. The Rehabilitative Purpose of the Act Does Not Outweigh Juveniles’ Due
Process Protections
The State puts forth several arguments that D.L. is not entitled to notice because
this notice undermines the rehabilitative nature of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, ch.
13.40 RCW. We note, however, that the Juvenile Justice Act does not subordinate the
due process rights of juveniles to rehabilitation. RCW 13.40.010(2)(e). Rather, due
process and rehabilitation are equally important under the Juvenile Justice Act. Id.
Bearing this in mind, the State claims that allowing notice of aggravating factors
will lead to requiring additional disclosures in the information and warnings during the
plea colloquy. But we have found notice of aggravating factors to be sufficient even
without a formal colloquy or charging document, and we do not impose these formalities
here. Siers, 174 Wn.2d at 277.
Additionally, the State asserts that adding this notice will unduly impair the
juvenile justice system by imposing additional notice requirements. But this argument
ignores the fact that juveniles already have the right to notice of facts that will support
the conviction under Gault, and that many of these facts will be highly relevant in
determining whether a manifest injustice disposition is appropriate. In re Gault, 387
U.S. at 33. As the statute makes clear, the most relevant factors in finding a manifest
injustice—the aggravating factors—are those listed in RCW 13.40.150(3)(i). Most, if
11
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
not all of these factors, are tethered to the commission of the immediate crime. See id.
As a result, many of the facts that would support a manifest injustice disposition can be
found in the probable cause affidavit and police reports. The factual allegations
contained in these documents can be readily incorporated as the factual basis for the
juvenile’s plea. As a result, in most cases, complying with this notice requirement will
have a negligible impact on the prosecutor.
Last, the State argues that notice rights should not be expanded because “the right
to counsel is far more useful than an additional speculative warning during a plea
colloquy[, as c]ounsel can explain what a manifest injustice disposition means and when
a judge will likely impose one.” State of Wash. Suppl. Br. at 17. But the right to notice
and counsel are not mutually exclusive. It is difficult, if not impossible, to weigh the
risk of a manifest injustice disposition without knowing the specific facts4 that the State
will rely on. While the right to counsel as established in Gault is an important one, it is
largely meaningless if the juvenile is denied the guarantees of fundamental fairness.
Accordingly, we hold in this particular case that the rehabilitative purpose of the
Juvenile Justice Act does not supersede D.L.’s right to adequate notice.
4
Requiring notice of the specific facts that could support a manifest injustice disposition ensures
that the notice provided to the juvenile is meaningful. A juvenile does not have adequate notice
of a manifest injustice disposition simply because it is authorized by statute. We overrule State
v. Moro, 117 Wn. App. 913, 923, 73 P.3d 1029 (2003), and State v. J.V., 132 Wn. App. 533, 539,
132 P.3d 1116 (2006), to the extent that they are inconsistent with today’s opinion.
12
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
D. Where the Court Imposes a Manifest Injustice Disposition Based on Improper
Factors, the Court Must Remand for Resentencing
D.L. has since completed his manifest injustice disposition, and this case is
technically moot. Accordingly, this court must decide the issue in the case without any
further action. See State v. B.O.J., 194 Wn.2d 314, 331, 449 P.3d 1006 (2019).
Notably, the court imposed the manifest injustice based on factors that were not
independently sufficient to justify the disposition. Clerk’s Papers at 209. Thus, if this
case were not moot, this court would “remand to the trial court for a new disposition
hearing[, and o]n remand, the trial court would remain free to impose a manifest
injustice based on appropriate factors.” B.O.J., 194 Wn.2d at 331.
IV. CONCLUSION
Due process requires that juveniles receive notice, before pleading guilty, of any
facts existing prior to plea that will be used to support a manifest injustice disposition.
This ensures that juveniles are not subject to unfair surprise at sentencing by introducing
new facts and ensures juveniles can make an adequately informed choice to plead guilty,
just as adults do. Because D.L. has completed his sentence and this case is technically
moot, this court merely decides the case without further action. We reverse.
13
State v. D.L.
No. 96143-3
WE CONCUR:
14
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (González, C.J., concurring)
No. 96143-3
GONZÁLEZ, C.J. (concurring) – I concur with the lead opinion. A juvenile
charged with an offense is entitled to a fundamentally fair process. It is not
fundamentally fair to let children plead guilty without warning them of facts that
could be used to impose a long sentence through a manifest injustice disposition.
Like an exceptional sentence for an adult, a manifest injustice disposition
imposes an additional sentence beyond the standard sentencing range for a
juvenile. Both the federal and our state constitutions require adequate notice of
facts that might subject a person to an exceptional sentence. Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000) (the
Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution command that
any fact that “ʻincreases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an
indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubtʼ” (quoting
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 243 n.6, 119 S. Ct. 1215, 143 L. Ed. 2d 311
(1999)); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 305, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d
403 (2004) (the lack of facts to support the exceptional sentence “did not comply
with the Sixth Amendment”); State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269, 277, 274 P.3d 358
(2012) (“article I, section 22 of Washington’s constitution” requires prior notice of
1
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (González, C.J., concurring)
aggravating circumstances). Juveniles deserve these same protections. In re
Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 27-28, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967) (“it would be
extraordinary if our Constitution did not require the procedural regularity and the
exercise of care implied in the phrase ‘due process’”).
I write separately to reemphasize this court’s commitment to eliminating
systemic race-based injustice and inequities from our legal system. Amici amply
demonstrate that racial bias influences the decision to impose a manifest injustice
sentence. Br. of Fred T. Korematsu Ctr. for Law & Equality et al. as Amici Curiae
in Supp. of Pet’r (Br. of Amici Curiae Korematsu Ctr. et al.) at 18-19; see also Br.
of Amici Curiae Am. Civil Liberties Union of Wash. & King County Dep’t of Pub.
Def. at 3-4 (citing OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE & DELINQUENCY PREVENTION,
OJJDP FY 2019 TITLE II RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES ACTION PLAN,
https://www.ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/WA-
FY18-DMC-PLAN%20508.pdf [https://perma.cc/UL7U-T9WQ]. 1 The fact that
1
Amici call to our attention a considerable body of evidence that shows the juvenile criminal
system disproportionately affects children of color. See Br. of Amici Curiae Am. Civil Liberties
Union of Wash. & King County Dep’t of Pub. Def. at 4-7 (citing DEP’T OF SOC. & HEALTH
SERVS., WASHINGTON STATE PARTNERSHIP ON JUVENILE JUSTICE 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
GOVERNOR AND STATE LEGISLATURE (2017), https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/JJ-
AnnnualReport2017.pdf [https://perma.cc/T7UL-5Y78] (showing that children of color are more
likely to face harsher punishment in juvenile court); Ashley Nellis et al., Reducing Racial
Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners and Policymakers, THE
SENT’G PROJECT (2018), https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/Reducing-Racial-Disparity-in-the-Criminal-
Justice-System-A-Manual-for-Practitioners-and-Policymakers.pdf [https://perma.cc/R4JQ-
27AX] (study showing that probation officers viewed children differently depending on their
race)).
2
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (González, C.J., concurring)
children of color systematically receive disproportionately high sentences violates
the promise of due process and equal protection of the law. Unfortunately,
research shows that judges rely on recommendations from probation officers that
consistently and effectively impose higher sentences on children of color. Br. of
Amici Curiae Korematsu Ctr. et al. at 18-19 (citing Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the
Judicial Mind, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 777 (2001) (reporting on five empirical studies
of judges’ biases and finding that judges are affected by the same biases and
cognitive illusions as lay people); George S. Bridges & Sara Steen, Racial
Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes
as Mediating Mechanisms, 63 AM. SOC. REV. 554, 567 (1998) (study finding that
race of the defendant influences juvenile probation officer
recommendations)). Requiring notice of aggravating factors will give juveniles a
more meaningful opportunity to defend against outcomes that might in fact be
based on racial bias. Given what we know about disproportionate outcomes for
people of color in our legal system, we must take steps to ensure that all juveniles
have meaningful notice and opportunity to defend against allegations that expose
them to a higher sentence. See, e.g., State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1, 18, 427 P.3d
621 (2018) (plurality opinion) (“Where new, objective information is presented for
our consideration, we must account for it.”).
With these observations, I concur.
3
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (González, C.J., concurring)
4
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
No. 96143-3
STEPHENS, J. (concurring)—Fourteen year old D.L. pleaded guilty to one
count of first degree attempted child molestation. After D.L. failed to qualify for a
special sex offender disposition alternative (SSODA) offered as part of his plea deal,
the juvenile court imposed a manifest injustice disposition based on D.L.’s actions
during the SSODA screening process and on the fact that D.L.’s victim was
particularly vulnerable.
Today’s lead opinion reverses D.L.’s manifest injustice disposition because
D.L. did not receive notice of all facts supporting the disposition before pleading
guilty. The lead opinion concludes that due process requires juvenile offenders
receive preplea notice of facts the juvenile court relies on when imposing a manifest
injustice disposition above the standard range. Lead opinion at 2. I agree with the
lead opinion that fundamental fairness requires juvenile offenders be notified of facts
1
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
that exist at the time of their plea that could support a manifest injustice sentence so
they can make an informed strategic decision about whether to plead guilty. But I
disagree that due process precludes the court from considering circumstances that
arise after the plea but before disposition. The lead opinion’s holding creates an
impossible requirement, premised on the erroneous view that sentencing under the
juvenile justice system parallels the adult system. It effectively strips juvenile courts
of the discretion granted to them by the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (JJA), ch. 13.40
RCW, to consider juvenile offenders’ post-plea actions and appropriately assess
individual risk factors at disposition hearings. As explained in my opinion in State
v. M.S., No. 96894-2 (Wash. Apr. 15, 2021) (Stephens, J., concurring in part,
dissenting in part), the lead opinion’s flawed analysis will make the flexible juvenile
justice system operate more like the rigidly punitive adult criminal justice system,
resulting in more juvenile offenders being charged with new crimes, serving more
time in confinement, and being burdened with longer criminal histories. Because
the juvenile justice system disproportionately affects children of color, the lead
opinion’s decision will only exacerbate the racial inequities that infects our legal
system.
I would hold that notice is sufficient when juvenile offenders are advised,
before pleading guilty, that juvenile courts may consider their postplea actions at
their disposition hearings and that those actions could support manifest injustice
2
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
dispositions. Juvenile offenders should be warned that what they say and do during
a SSODA screening, a deferred disposition, or other disposition alternatives may be
considered by the juvenile court in support of a manifest injustice disposition at a
future disposition hearing. Providing such notice addresses the lead opinion’s
concern that juvenile offenders be able to make informed strategic decisions about
whether to plead guilty. It does not, however, unduly limit the discretion of juvenile
courts to do individual justice, nor require the impossible—preplea notice of
postplea facts. Because D.L. did not receive constitutionally adequate notice here, I
agree that his manifest injustice disposition must be reversed.
RELEVANT FACTS
D.L. pleaded guilty to a count of first degree attempted child molestation. As
part of D.L.’s plea deal, the State agreed to recommend a SSODA instead of a term
in juvenile confinement, assuming D.L. qualified through the SSODA screening
process. If D.L. did not qualify for SSODA, the State agreed to recommend a
disposition within the standard range of 15 to 36 weeks in juvenile confinement.
D.L. agreed that the State’s probable cause statement could serve as the factual basis
for his conviction. That statement mentioned the age of D.L.’s minor victim, but did
not mention that the victim is cognitively delayed.
3
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
Before accepting D.L.’s plea, the juvenile court engaged D.L. in a colloquy to
ensure he understood the benefits and consequences of pleading guilty. The juvenile
court confirmed D.L. understood the rights he was giving up, the SSODA screening
process, and the standard range for his offense. The juvenile court also made clear
that it did not have to accept the recommendation in D.L.’s plea deal and that it could
send D.L. to juvenile confinement in lieu of SSODA, even if D.L. qualified.
But the juvenile court never directly told D.L. it could impose a manifest
injustice disposition longer than the standard range of 15 to 36 weeks in juvenile
detention. The juvenile court’s only reference to dispositions outside the standard
range was in the context of what D.L. would be able to appeal:
THE COURT: Okay. And do you understand that you cannot
appeal any sentence I impose within the standard range?
[D.L.]: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. The only thing you could appeal would
be a sentence outside the range, but otherwise, whatever I end up
ordering to here you are stuck with; do you understand that?
[D.L.]: Yes.
6 Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 129-30. Similarly, the only
mention of a manifest injustice disposition in D.L.’s signed plea deal was in the
section describing D.L.’s limited right to appeal:
8. RIGHT TO APPEAL SENTENCE: I understand, that the judge must
impose a sentence within the standard range, unless the judge finds by
clear and convincing evidence that the standard range sentence would
4
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
amount to a manifest injustice. If the judge goes outside the standard
range, either the state or I can appeal that sentence. If the sentence is
within the standard range, no one can appeal the sentence.
Clerk’s Papers at 108.
The record does not indicate that D.L. was ever told what could lead the
juvenile court to impose a manifest injustice disposition, much less that his actions
during the SSODA screening process could be grounds for a manifest injustice
disposition. To the contrary, the juvenile court and the State made comments
suggesting that D.L. should expect a standard range period of confinement if he was
unable to complete SSODA:
THE COURT: Okay. The other part of this you need to
understand is that if you are allowed to do a [S]SODA, and you
don’t finish the [S]SODA, if you get revoked/removed from that
[S]SODA, then you would almost automatically go to the
institution for this standard range of 15 to 36 weeks.
6 VRP at 135.
MS. STONE: And then I just—I know that [D.L.] realizes this,
and I know that this was conveyed to him, but the State’s expectation
is if things don’t work out, and he does not qualify or if he does
eventually get revoked [from SSODA,] that it would be an agreed
recommendation that he go for that standard range. . . . [T]he State
wouldn’t be arguing for anything outside of that range.”
Id. at 147.
D.L. did not cooperate with the SSODA screening process. He repeatedly
missed treatment dates and refused to accept accountability for his criminal actions.
5
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
Consequently, D.L.’s probation officer filed a report with the juvenile court
recommending D.L. receive a manifest injustice disposition.
At D.L.’s disposition hearing, the juvenile court found that a manifest
injustice disposition was necessary because (1) D.L.’s victim was particularly
vulnerable because the victim is cognitively delayed and (2) D.L.’s actions during
the SSODA screening process showed D.L. posed a serious risk to reoffend. The
juvenile court immediately remanded D.L. into juvenile confinement to serve a
manifest injustice disposition of 36 to 40 weeks.
D.L. timely appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Loomer,
No. 77360-7-I, slip op. at 3 (Wash. Ct. App. June 25, 2018) (unpublished),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/773607.pdf. We granted discretionary
review to decide whether the juvenile court’s imposition of the manifest injustice
disposition based on facts not contained in the probable cause statement violated
D.L.’s due process rights.
ANALYSIS
This case asks us to decide whether due process requires juvenile offenders
be given notice of the specific facts that support aggravating factors for a manifest
injustice disposition before they enter a plea. The lead opinion concludes that
notions of fundamental fairness require such notice. I agree in part.
6
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
Specifically, I concur in the lead opinion’s holding that juvenile offenders
must be given notice, before pleading guilty, of any facts existing prior to plea that
could be used to support a manifest injustice disposition. Requiring preplea notice
of facts “tethered to the commission of the immediate crime” makes sense because
“many of the facts that would support a manifest injustice disposition can be
[included] in the probable cause affidavit and police reports” that provide the factual
basis for a plea deal. Lead opinion at 12. This requirement is also consistent with
the United States Supreme Court’s command that juveniles must be notified of the
charges against them “at the earliest practicable time” so that they have a meaningful
opportunity to prepare and present a defense to contest the charges against them. In
re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 33, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967). I agree that
fundamental fairness requires juvenile offenders be notified of any existing fact that
could support a manifest injustice disposition before they enter a plea. Because D.L.
was not informed before pleading guilty that his victim’s cognitive delays could
result in a manifest injustice disposition, the juvenile court should not have
considered that fact at D.L.’s disposition hearing.
Unfortunately, the lead opinion goes on to stretch that practicable notice
requirement into an impossibility. In a single paragraph near the end of its analysis,
the lead opinion “hold[s] that facts arising after the plea, like D.L.’s . . . refusal of
treatment, cannot be used to justify a manifest injustice disposition.” Lead opinion
7
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
at 10. The consequence is clear: because juvenile offenders can never be given
preplea notice of their postplea actions, juvenile courts can never consider those
postplea actions when deciding whether to impose a manifest injustice disposition.
The lead opinion suggests three justifications for so limiting juvenile court’s
discretion, but none withstand scrutiny.
First, the lead opinion claims the State should “be bound to its election of
charges” and should have “charged D.L. differently” if it “wanted to seek a greater
confinement range.” Id. But the State never tried to change the charge against D.L.
and never sought a greater confinement range. It was D.L.’s probation officers—
not the attorney representing the State—who recommended the juvenile court
impose a manifest injustice disposition. In fact, at D.L.’s disposition hearing, the
State stood by the terms of the plea deal:
MS. STONE: I don’t have anything to present, but I think as
Your Honor has mentioned before, I think it’s wise for the State to
remind the Court that I had negotiated a certain amount of weeks in the
standard range with Ms. Jones and her client. This was an offer that was
extended while we were in the midst of trial, and the motivation of the
State—I was hopeful that [D.L.] would qualify for the [S]SODA
program because I think that that would have been the best case
scenario for him, being able to get that treatment and have the State pay
for it and get him the help that he needs. And I remember conveying
that to Ms. Jones, and I hope that she conveyed that to [D.L.]. But now
that we’re at where we’re at, we’re looking at the plea agreement that
we came to if it was found that he was not eligible or if he was revoked,
which is the 15 to 36 weeks.
8
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
10 VRP at 236. The lead opinion’s suggestion that the State unfairly sought a higher
confinement range is unfounded.
Second, the lead opinion states without elaboration that “the most relevant
factors” to juvenile courts’ consideration of manifest injustice dispositions
“primarily relate to the circumstances surrounding the immediate crime as well as
the juvenile’s dispositional history.” Lead opinion at 10 (citing RCW
13.40.150(3)(i)). But nothing in the JJA restricts the juvenile courts’ consideration
to those factors. To the contrary, the JJA explicitly authorizes juvenile courts to
consider “all relevant and material evidence.” RCW 13.40.150(1) (emphasis added).
That is why this court unanimously held juvenile courts can consider nonstatutory
factors in deciding whether to impose manifest injustice dispositions. State v. M.S.,
No. 96894-2, slip op. at 21 (“The court may consider all material and probative
evidence in entering a disposition. The limit on what a court may consider as an
aggravating factor is that the factor must relate to the juvenile posing a ‘serious, and
clear danger to society.’” (citation omitted) (citing RCW 13.40.150(1) and quoting
RCW 13.40.020(19))). The lead opinion’s contrary claim is inconsistent with the
plain language of the JJA and untenable in light of our decision in M.S.
Finally, the lead opinion argues that “facts arising after the plea may be
relevant for dispositional purposes for determining a sentence within the standard
range,” but that “invocation of these facts without any notice to justify a longer
9
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
sentence clearly runs afoul of the juvenile’s right to fundamental fairness.” Lead
opinion at 10. This argument is apparently based on the lead opinion’s mistaken
assumption that manifest injustice dispositions in the juvenile justice context are
analogous to exceptional sentences based on aggravating circumstances in the adult
criminal context. “However, a juvenile tried in juvenile court is not being tried in
an adult criminal court and the analogy to adult criminal courts is not appropriate.”
State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408, 418, 352 P.3d 749 (2015) (rejecting application of
the constitutional right to open courts to juvenile justice proceedings).
Instead, we must carefully consider which of the specific “procedural rules
[that] have been fashioned from the generality of due process” in the adult criminal
context are necessary to protect the fundamental fairness of juvenile justice
proceedings. Gault, 387 U.S. at 21. To do so, we must “ascertain the precise impact
of the due process requirement upon such proceedings” and inquire whether it is
necessary to guarantee fundamental fairness. Id. at 13-14. That inquiry requires us
to compare the juvenile and adult justice systems to determine whether the
procedural rule in question will serve the same purpose.
The procedural rule at issue here is the requirement anchored in Apprendi v.
New Jersey 1 that adult offenders be given “‘sufficient notice from the State to
1
530 U.S. 466, 494, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).
10
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
prepare a defense against the aggravating circumstances that the State will seek to
prove in order to support an exceptional sentence.’” State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269,
278, 274 P.3d 358 (2012) (quoting State v. Powell, 167 Wn.2d 672, 682, 223 P.3d
493 (2009) (plurality opinion); Siers overruled Powell in part). The lead opinion
declines to analyze Apprendi, claiming it does not need to do so “as [it] resolve[s]
this case on the issue of ensuring fundamental fairness.” Lead opinion at 6 n.3. I
am unconvinced that Apprendi can be so easily set aside. In order to resolve a case
on fundamental fairness grounds, we must grapple with the due process requirement
in question and analyze how it will affect juvenile justice proceedings. Gault, 387
U.S. at 13-14, 21. Had the lead opinion engaged in this analysis, it would have
discovered that the constitutional concerns requiring notice of aggravating factors to
support adult exceptional sentences do not apply with equal force in the juvenile
context.
Apprendi holds that due process protections attach to “any fact that increases
the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum,” except for the
fact of a prior conviction. 530 U.S. at 490. In determining whether full due process
rights attach to specific facts, “the relevant inquiry is one not of form, but of effect—
does the required finding expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that
authorized by the [offender’s] guilty [plea]?” Id. at 494.
11
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
In the adult criminal context, the finding of specific aggravating facts exposes
adult offenders to higher categories of punishment than they would otherwise be
eligible to receive. RCW 9.94A.535. Therefore, due process requires adult
offenders receive notice of those specific facts before they enter a plea. Apprendi,
530 U.S. at 490 (due process protections attach to “any fact that increases the penalty
for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum,” other than the fact of a prior
conviction).
But in the juvenile context, manifest injustice dispositions are not contingent
on the finding of specific aggravating facts. Unlike adult exceptional sentences,
juvenile manifest injustice dispositions are possible in every case. See RCW
13.40.0357, .020(19). Therefore, the finding of specific aggravating facts does not
expose juvenile offenders to a higher range of punishment in the same way they do
in the adult context. Another difference is that the finding of specific aggravating
facts is necessary to expose adult offenders to exceptional sentences, while juvenile
courts can impose manifest injustice dispositions without finding any specific
aggravating facts at all. Compare RCW 9.94A.535(3) (“the following circumstances
are an exclusive list of factors that can support a sentence above the standard range”),
with RCW 13.40.0357, and RCW 13.40.020(19) (allowing juvenile courts to impose
manifest injustice dispositions whenever they find that a standard range disposition
“would impose a serious, and clear danger to society”).
12
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
Because no specific set of facts expose juvenile defenders to greater
punishments than they could receive in any disposition hearing, the due process
concerns associated with specific aggravating facts in the adult context do not apply
with equal force in the juvenile context. Nor do we serve the interests of juvenile
justice by importing them here, especially because of the harsh consequences for
juvenile offenders that will necessarily follow. See M.S., No. 96894-2, slip op. at 22
(Stephens, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“[T]oday’s decision leaves the
State with only one option to hold juvenile offenders . . . responsible for postplea
criminal [activity]: file new criminal charges against them.” (citing majority at 16)).
I would therefore preserve juvenile courts’ long-standing discretion to consider
juvenile offenders’ postplea actions when deciding whether to impose a manifest
injustice disposition, so long as juvenile offenders are given meaningful notice of
that discretion before entering a plea.
In sum, I believe fundamental fairness requires that juvenile offenders be
notified before entering their plea (1) of any specific existing facts that could support
a manifest injustice disposition and (2) that their actions after entering a plea could
support a manifest injustice disposition. Distinguishing between existing and future
facts in this manner addresses the lead opinion’s concern that juvenile offenders be
13
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
able to make informed strategic decisions about whether to plead guilty without
unduly limiting the discretion granted to juvenile courts by the JJA.
Under this standard, I agree the juvenile court’s imposition of a manifest
injustice disposition was fundamentally unfair to D.L. He was not provided any
notice before his plea that the particular vulnerability of his victim could be
considered to support a manifest injustice disposition. And, unlike the juvenile
offender in M.S., D.L. was never given sufficient notice that his actions after entering
his plea—including his level of cooperation with the SSODA screening process—
could be used to support a manifest injustice disposition. In M.S., the juvenile court
repeatedly and explicitly told the offender that he could be subject to a manifest
injustice disposition if he violated the terms of his plea deal. But here, the juvenile
court glossed over the possibility that it could impose a manifest injustice
disposition. The words “manifest injustice” do not appear even once in the verbatim
report of proceedings for D.L.’s plea hearing. 6 VRP at 122-50. The juvenile court
certainly never explained that D.L.’s failure to successfully complete the SSODA
screening process could be grounds for a manifest injustice disposition. Instead, the
juvenile court and the State made comments at D.L.’s plea hearing that suggested
D.L. could expect a disposition within the standard range if SSODA fell through.
See id. at 135, 147.
14
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
It is obviously impossible to give juvenile offenders notice of facts that have
not yet occurred at the time they enter a plea. Due process requires only that notice
be given “at the earliest practicable time.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 33. But juvenile
offenders can and should be told that juvenile courts can consider their postplea
actions, including during a SSODA screening process, when deciding whether to
impose a manifest injustice disposition. I would hold such notice is sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of fundamental fairness. But because D.L. did not receive
constitutionally sufficient notice here, I concur in the result reached by the lead
opinion.
CONCLUSION
By treating juvenile manifest injustice dispositions like adult exceptional
sentences, the lead opinion undermines the flexibility and discretion that has long
been the hallmark of our juvenile justice system. This court recently observed that
“‘[i]f the formalities of the criminal adjudicative process are to be superimposed
upon the juvenile court system, there is little need for its separate existence.’”
State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 418 (quoting McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S.
528, 551, 91 S. Ct. 1976, 29 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1971)). No one is well served by a
juvenile justice system that behaves more like the rigid and punitive adult criminal
justice system, least of all juvenile offenders. I would preserve the discretion
15
State v. D.L., No. 96143-3 (Stephens, J., concurring)
granted to juvenile courts by the JJA and recognize that meaningful notice of facts
that may support a manifest injustice disposition must be given at the earliest
practicable time. Because D.L. did not receive adequate notice here, I respectfully
concur in the result to vacate his manifest injustice disposition.
16
State v. D.L.
Combined Opinion