When determining an appropriate sentence for a person convicted of an assault offense, the Washington courts will, among other things, calculate the person’s offender score. Numerous factors can impact the score, including whether the person has prior convictions for certain offenses. As discussed in a ruling recently issued in a Washington assault case, the court may consider such convictions regardless of whether they occurred in another state as long as they are comparable to Washington law. If you are accused of an assault offense, it is wise to confer with a Tacoma assault defense attorney to determine your possible defenses at your earliest convenience.
Factual Setting and Procedural Background
It is reported that the defendant was convicted of assault in the fourth degree and attempting to elude a police vehicle. At sentencing, he contested the inclusion of a prior out-of-state conviction from 2003 in his offender score, arguing that the underlying offense for that conviction, a 1987 drug possession charge from California, would not be recognized under Washington law due to a 2021 Washington Supreme Court ruling that deemed Washington’s simple drug possession statute unconstitutional.
Reportedly, the defendant argued that since the predicate offense for his California conviction would be invalid under current Washington law, the 2003 conviction should not be factored into his sentencing. The trial court rejected this argument, stating that the ruling the defendant relied upon did not affect the validity of other states’ laws or the defendant’s out-of-state conviction. Consequently, the trial court included the 2003 conviction in the defendant’s offender score. The defendant challenged this decision.
Prior Convictions for the Purposes of Calculating Offender Scores
In reviewing whether the trial court correctly included the defendant’s 2003 California conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm in his offender score, the court applied the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), which mandates that out-of-state convictions be classified according to their comparability to Washington offenses.
The court conducted a two-part comparability analysis: first, it assessed the legal comparability of the relevant statutes by comparing the elements of the California and Washington crimes; and second, it evaluated the factual comparability, determining whether the defendant’s conduct would have constituted a crime under Washington law.
The court found that although the California statute was broader—criminalizing firearm possession by individuals “addicted to the use of any narcotic”—the defendant’s conduct, specifically the possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, satisfied the elements of the Washington statute. Therefore, the court ruled that the California conviction was factually comparable to the Washington offense, thus justifying its inclusion in the offender score.
The court also dismissed the defendant’s argument that the constitutionality of the California predicate offense should be assessed under Washington law, noting that neither the plain language of the SRA nor any relevant case law requires such an analysis. In doing so, the court noted that the sentencing process is distinct from the conviction process, and it rejected the notion of requiring a detailed examination of another state’s laws during sentencing. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to include the 2003 conviction in the defendant’s offender score.
Meet with an Experienced Tacoma Defense Attorney
People charged with assault crimes may face substantial penalties if they are convicted, especially if they were previously found guilty of certain crimes. If you are accused of an assault offense, the experienced Tacoma assault defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White can evaluate your case and gather any evidence in your support of your defenses to provide you with a good chance of a favorable result. You can reach us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to arrange a meeting.