How Do Firearm Enhancements Work in Washington State?

In Washington, there are certain factors that can increase a person’s sentence if he or she is convicted of a crime. For example, firearm enhancements can increase the sentence for a felony conviction. A Washington appellate court recently discussed the sufficiency of evidence needed to support a firearm enhancement in a case in which the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement following her assault, kidnapping, and robbery convictions. If you are charged with a criminal offense involving the use of a firearm, it is important to retain an experienced Washington criminal defense attorney to analyze what evidence the State may introduce against you and the effect any evidence may have in the event of a conviction.

Sufficiency of Evidence for Firearm Enhancement

Under Washington law, a firearm enhancement will increase the sentence for an underlying felony if the defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. A defendant is considered armed when he or she is nearby a deadly weapon that is readily and easily accessible and a nexus is established between the crime, the weapon, and the defendant. The court explained that a nexus will be found if the weapon and defendant were in close proximity at the time of the crime. If the facts support an inference of a connection between the crime, the defendant, and the weapon, it will be sufficient evidence of a nexus.

Grounds for Imposing Multiple-Firearms Enhancements

In Washington, people convicted of felonies are often barred from owning or possessing firearms. As such, if the police find guns in the possession of a convicted felon, it can lead to criminal charges and sentence enhancements. Further, the penalties can increase with the number of weapons found.

A Recent Example

People charged with weapons crimes in Washington may face significant penalties. In some instances, it is within the discretion of the sentencing court to determine whether the circumstances warrant a lesser sentence than called for by the guidelines. Extraordinary sentences will only be granted in certain circumstances, though, as demonstrated in a recent Washington ruling. If you are accused of committing a crime involving a firearm, it is advisable to meet with a knowledgeable Washington weapons charge defense attorney to discuss your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentence

It is reported that the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and robbery with a firearm enhancement. He pleaded guilty to both charges. He was nineteen years old at the time he committed the offenses. Thus, during the sentencing hearing, he requested that he receive an exceptional sentence due to his youth. For the base sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of fifty-four months imprisonment, which was below the standard range. For the firearm enhancement, though, the court found that it did not have the discretion to reduce the standard sentence or to allow it to run at the same time as the base sentence and sentenced the defendant to sixty additional months in prison. The defendant then appealed.

Discretion in Sentencing for Convictions of Firearm Charges

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to acknowledge its discretion to reduce the length of the firearm enhancement or to permit it to run at the same time as the base sentence, as an exceptional sentence based on the defendant’s youth. Instead, the court noted that it recently ruled on the precise issue at hand, nothing that trial courts do not have the authority to impose an exceptional downward sentence for a firearm enhancement, in cases in which the defendant was not a juvenile at the time the crime was committed.

As the defendant was nineteen when he committed the offense, he was not a minor, and the court affirmed the trial court lacked the discretion to reduce the standard sentence. The defendant also argued that the trial court erred in ordering that the defendant was not permitted to have any contact with a chain of grocery stores throughout Washington for the remainder of his life, noting that the store was neither a victim of a nor a witness to the crime. The State conceded the error, and that portion of the defendant’s sentence was remanded to be corrected.

Another Recent Example Involving a Weapons Enhancement

It is reported that the defendant and two other individuals robbed multiple people inside a house. The defendant demanded money and drugs from one of the victims. Additionally, at three different points during the robbery, she allegedly pointed what appeared to be a gun at people. Ultimately, the defendant and her accomplices left the home. They were apprehended about a mile from the house. After searching the vehicle in which the defendant and her accomplices were traveling, the police found a rifle, a shotgun, and two pistols. On further inspection, however, it was revealed that only the shotgun was a real gun, as the rifle and pistols were pellet guns. The defendant was charged with a multitude of crimes, including robbery, assault, and kidnapping. Following a trial, a jury found her guilty on all charges and found that she was armed with a firearm during the crimes. The defendant appealed on several grounds. One of the arguments set forth by the defendant was that there was insufficient evidence to support the firearm enhancements to her kidnapping, robbery, and assault convictions.

Here, the court found that the State presented sufficient evidence of a nexus. Specifically, one of the victims testified that he witnessed the defendant holding the shotgun at one point during the robbery, and another testified that the defendant was nearby the shotgun at other times during the robbery. Thus, the court held that the jury could have reasonably found that the defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the robbery, assault, and kidnapping.

A Recent Example Involving a Multiple Weapons Enhancement

Recently, a Washington court issued an opinion explaining the grounds for imposing multiple firearms enhancements in criminal cases, in a matter in which the defendant appealed his sentence. If you are accused of a weapons crime, it is advisable to meet with a Washington weapons charges defense lawyer regarding your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest, Trial, and Sentencing

It is reported that a confidential informant advised the police that the defendant, a convicted felon on parole, possessed two weapons: a rifle and a shotgun. He sold the weapons to an undercover officer the following day. Approximately three months later, he was indicted on an unlawful possession of a firearm charge, and was arrested the following day. Officers searched his residence and found a revolver. They searched his storage unit as well and found two more guns.

Allegedly, the defendant entered a guilty plea. The pre-sentence report recommended, among other things, a level-two enhancement because the crime involved five firearms. The enhancement was applied, after which the defendant appealed.

Grounds for Imposing Multiple-Firearms Enhancements

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in imposing a multiple firearm enhancement because the three guns found during the searches of his properties were not adequately linked to the earlier weapons possessions out of which his charge arose. Specifically, he noted there was an eleven-week lapse in between the acts involving the first two weapons and the police finding the three other weapons.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument. First, it noted that the defendant failed to preserve the issue by objecting at the trial level, and thus it was subject to a plain error standard of review. The court explained, though, that the argument failed under any level of scrutiny. Specifically, under the applicable law, the enhancement is merited if the underlying offense involved the unlawful possession of three to seven firearms.

The court noted that “offense” meant not only the conviction but also any relevant conduct, which included all omissions and acts committed or willfully caused by the defendant if they were part of the same common scheme, course of conduct, or plan as the offense for which the defendant was convicted. Here, the court found that the defendant’s unlawful possession of the three firearms that were found during the searches were part of the same plan or scheme out of which the underlying charges and conviction arose, namely possessing firearms unlawfully. Thus, the court affirmed his sentence.

Our Weapons Charge Defense Attorneys Can Help

If you are charged with a criminal offense involving the use of a firearm, it is important to retain a seasoned Washington weapons charge defense attorney to assist you in formulating your defense. At the Law Offices of Smith and White, our attorneys will work diligently to help you pursue a successful outcome under the facts of your case. You can reach us at (253) 203-1645 or through the online form to schedule a meeting.