Washington Court Discusses Calculation of Offender Scores in Assault Matter

Sentencing in Washington criminal cases can be complicated. Even a small change in how prior offenses are counted can make a significant difference in the outcome. In 2023, the Legislature amended Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act to limit the use of juvenile adjudications in calculating offender scores.

The appellate case State v. Gardner shows how courts handle this issue when a crime occurred before the amendment but sentencing took place after. The ruling underscores why anyone facing an assault charge in Tacoma or Pierce County needs an attorney who understands how offender scores and sentencing laws work.

For immediate help with your case, call the Law Offices of Smith & White at 253-203-1645 to speak with a Tacoma assault defense attorney.

What Happened in State v. Gardner?

In May 2023, the defendant was charged with second-degree assault. He pleaded guilty in August 2023.

Between the crime and the plea, lawmakers amended RCW 9.94A.525(1). The amendment became effective on July 23, 2023. From that date forward, most juvenile adjudications could no longer be used to calculate an adult offender’s score. The only exceptions were adjudications for murder in the first or second degree and class A felony sex offenses.

An offender score is central to Washington’s sentencing system. The number determines which range of months a judge must consider when imposing a sentence. Higher scores almost always lead to longer terms of confinement. Scores are built primarily on prior felony convictions. In limited cases, certain misdemeanor priors count too, and—until the 2023 change—most juvenile adjudications also added points.

The defendant in Gardner had prior juvenile adjudications, including a third-degree assault. Under the law in effect at the time of his offense, those adjudications increased his score. The State calculated a score of six and negotiated a plea agreement with a sentencing range of 33 to 43 months. The agreement preserved his right to argue for a lower score of five under the new statute.

How the Sentencing Played Out

The defendant also applied for the Mental Health Sentencing Alternative (MHSA), which allows certain defendants to serve sentences in treatment-focused programs rather than in prison. For defendants with diagnosed mental health issues, the MHSA can provide a path to rehabilitation while still holding them accountable.

At his November 2023 sentencing, the defendant argued that the new statute should apply because it was already in effect. If accepted, his offender score would have dropped, reducing his sentencing range.

The State responded that the court must apply the law in place when the offense occurred. The trial court agreed, set the score at six, and imposed a standard-range sentence while granting the MHSA.

Did the 2023 Amendment Apply Retroactively?

On appeal, the defendant argued again that the amendment should apply because sentencing took place after it became effective.

The appellate court rejected that argument and emphasized several principles:

Prospective application is presumed. Statutes apply only to future cases unless lawmakers clearly say otherwise.
No retroactivity language was included. The 2023 amendment contained no language suggesting it applied to earlier crimes.
RCW 9.94A.345 requires courts to apply the law in effect when the offense was committed. This statute locks sentencing to the rules in place at the time of the crime.
RCW 10.01.040, Washington’s savings clause, prevents amendments from changing punishment for past crimes unless explicitly stated.

Because the Legislature did not clearly authorize retroactive application, the defendant’s offender score had to be calculated using the law in effect in May 2023.

This ruling highlights the Legislature’s responsibility to speak clearly when it wants a change to apply retroactively. Without explicit language, courts will almost always presume amendments are forward-looking only.

How State v. Tester Influenced the Ruling

The appellate court also cited State v. Tester (2024), which dealt with the same amendment. In Tester, the defendant argued that his juvenile adjudications should be excluded because sentencing occurred after July 23, 2023. The court disagreed and held that the law in effect at the time of the offense controlled sentencing.

By reaffirming Tester, the Gardner decision strengthened the principle that sentencing statutes generally apply only prospectively. Together, these cases give Washington trial courts a clear framework when amendments take effect between the crime and sentencing.

Why the Court Rejected Constitutional Claims

The defendant also raised new constitutional claims on appeal. He argued that:

Counting juvenile adjudications violated equal protection.
Using them in sentencing amounted to cruel punishment.
A jury, not a judge, should determine the existence of prior adjudications.

The appellate court refused to consider these arguments. Under Washington law, constitutional claims not raised at trial are usually waived unless they qualify as “manifest constitutional error.” That standard applies only when the error is obvious and fundamental.

Here, the defendant cited no supporting authority. Washington courts have long upheld the use of juvenile adjudications in offender scores, and no precedent required a jury to make that determination. The appellate court concluded the claims failed to meet the standard and declined review.

This outcome shows the importance of raising constitutional and statutory arguments during the trial phase. Waiting until appeal often leaves defendants with no remedy.

What This Decision Means for Defendants

The Gardner case highlights several important lessons for people facing criminal charges in Tacoma and Pierce County:

The 2023 amendment does not apply retroactively. Courts will calculate offender scores using the law in effect when the crime was committed.
Legislative intent matters. Without clear retroactivity language, defendants cannot rely on new laws to change their sentence.
Raise constitutional issues early. Arguments not brought at trial are almost always waived on appeal.
Alternative sentencing may still help. Programs like the MHSA remain available even when offender scores stay the same.

For defendants, this means that even when laws change, you cannot assume they will reduce your sentencing exposure. Having a defense attorney who knows how to analyze these issues can make a real difference.

Call Our Tacoma Assault Defense Lawyers Today

Sentencing in Washington is guided by detailed statutes and case law. State v. Gardner confirms that courts apply the law in effect at the time of the offense, even if sentencing occurs after a legislative amendment. Defendants who fail to raise constitutional arguments at trial also risk losing them on appeal.

If you are facing assault charges in Pierce County, do not wait to protect your rights. At Smith & White, PLLC, our Tacoma assault defense attorneys understand the complexities of Washington sentencing law and will fight for the best possible outcome in your case.

Call the Law Offices of Smith & White today at (253) 203-1645 for a free consultation.