IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID CARPENTER ANDERSON,

Respondent.

No. 83896-2-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FELDMAN, J. — David Carpenter Anderson was originally sentenced in 1997, 

at the age of 17, to four mandatory life terms without the possibility of parole for 

the aggravated murders of Rose, Bill, Kim, and Julia Wilson. In March 2022, 

Anderson was resentenced pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. 

Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and our Miller-fix statutes, RCW 10.95.030(3)

and RCW 10.95.035, to “an indeterminant sentence of 33 years to life.” The State 

appeals the trial court’s sentence. Because we agree with the State that the trial 

court misinterpreted controlling case law regarding de facto life sentences of 

juvenile offenders, we remand for resentencing.

I

In 1997, Anderson and his friend Alex Baranyi brutally murdered Rose, Bill, 

Kim, and Julia Wilson. Anderson and Baranyi had discussed killing the Wilsons for 
No. 83896-2-I/2

- 2 -

more than a year. Anderson had researched the possible punishments for murder 

and, according to witnesses who testified at trial, knew he would not face the death 

penalty if he committed the murders prior to turning 18. Anderson was just shy of 

turning 18 years old at the time of the murders.

Anderson was subsequently charged with and convicted of four counts of 

aggravated murder. He was originally sentenced in 1997 to four mandatory life 

terms without the possibility of parole. Fifteen years later, the United States

Supreme Court decided Miller, and held that “mandatory life-without-parole 

sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 470. Although the 

Court still permitted nonmandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile

offenders, the Court “require[d the sentencer] to take into account how children are 

different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them 

to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480.

In response to Miller, the Washington legislature enacted what are 

commonly referred to as the Miller-fix statutes, RCW 10.95.030(3) and RCW 

10.95.035. Relevant here, RCW 10.95.030(3)(b) provides:

In setting a minimum term, the court must take into account 

mitigating factors that account for the diminished culpability of youth 

as provided in Miller v. Alabama, [567 U.S. 460] 132 S. Ct. 2455 [183 

L.Ed.2d 407] (2012)[,] including, but not limited to, the age of the 

individual, the youth’s childhood and life experience, the degree of 

responsibility the youth was capable of exercising, and the youth’s 

chances of becoming rehabilitated.

Additionally, under RCW 10.95.035(1), any juvenile offender who had been 

sentenced to life without parole prior to June 1, 2014 “shall be returned to the 

sentencing court or the sentencing court’s successor for sentencing consistent with 

RCW 10.95.030.”
No. 83896-2-I/3

- 3 -

Anderson was resentenced under Miller and the Miller-fix statutes in March 

2022. Since his original sentencing in 1997, Anderson had maintained his 

innocence. But when Anderson learned he was entitled to resentencing under 

Miller and the Miller-fix statutes, he decided he “had to say [he] did this . . . [and] 

[a]ccept full responsibility.” Following a two-day hearing in which the court 

considered Anderson’s testimony, the testimony of several expert witnesses, and 

each of the mitigating factors set forth in RCW 10.95.030(3)(b), the court 

resentenced Anderson to “an indeterminate sentence of 33 years to life.”

At the time of the resentencing, the controlling Washington Supreme Court 

decision regarding de facto life sentences of juvenile offenders was State v. Haag, 

198 Wn.2d 309, 495 P.3d 241 (2021). As discussed below, the trial court 

resentenced Anderson based on its interpretation of Haag. The State appealed the 

trial court’s resentencing ruling and, while the appeal was pending, our Supreme

Court clarified its holding in Haag in State v. Tonelli Anderson, 200 Wn.2d 266,

P.3d 1213 (2022).1 The State asserts that the trial court misinterpreted Haag as 

clarified in Tonelli Anderson and asks that we remand for resentencing.

II

A

Preliminarily, Anderson argues that the State cannot appeal the trial court’s 

resentencing decision. We disagree. 

Under RAP 2.2(b)(6)(B), the State may appeal in a criminal case where the 

sentence “involves a miscalculation of the standard range.” Case law similarly 

 1 To avoid confusion with David Anderson (the defendant and respondent herein), the Washington 

Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Anderson is referred to as Tonelli Anderson (the defendant’s 

full name).
No. 83896-2-I/4

- 4 -

holds that the State is entitled to appeal a sentence within the standard range when 

it is challenging “the underlying legal conclusions and determinations by which a 

court comes to apply a particular sentencing provision.” State v. Williams, 149 

Wn.2d 143, 147, 65 P.3d 1214 (2003). Here, the State argues that the trial court

misinterpreted controlling case law regarding de facto life sentences of juvenile 

offenders and therefore incorrectly determined Anderson’s sentence. Such an 

appeal is permitted under both RAP 2.2(b)(6)(B) and applicable case law.

Notwithstanding the above analysis, Anderson argues that RAP 

2.2(b)(6)(B) does not apply here because there is no standard range for 

aggravated murder. The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) defines “standard 

sentence range” as “the sentencing court’s discretionary range in imposing a 

nonappealable sentence.” RCW 9.94A.030(49). Based on this definition in the 

SRA, it is clear that RCW 10.95.030(3)(a)(ii) provides a standard range 

discretionary sentence for any person who is convicted of the crime of aggravated 

murder when the person is at least 16 but less than 18 years old, such that they 

“shall be sentenced to a maximum term of life imprisonment and a minimum term 

of total confinement of no less than twenty-five years.” The statute thus creates a 

standard range from a minimum term of 25 years to a maximum term of life 

imprisonment.

Where, as here, the trial court misinterprets the law that governs its 

discretion within that standard range, RAP 2.2(b)(6)(B) and applicable case law 

permit the State to appeal. We reject Anderson’s contrary argument.2

 2 Because we hold that the State can properly appeal the trial court’s sentencing ruling under RAP 

2.2(b)(6)(B), we need not reach its argument that its appeal is also permitted by RAP 2.2(b)(6)(C).
No. 83896-2-I/5

- 5 -

B

We next address the merits of the State’s argument that resentencing is 

required because the trial court misinterpreted controlling case law regarding de 

facto life sentences of juvenile offenders. “An appellate court will reverse a 

sentencing court’s decision only if it finds a clear abuse of discretion or a 

misapplication of the law.” State v. Porter, 133 Wn.2d 177, 181, 942 P.2d 974 

(1997). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly 

unreasonable or based on untenable grounds; this standard is also violated when 

a trial court makes a reasonable decision but applies the wrong legal standard or 

bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law.” State v. Corona, 164 Wn. App. 

76, 78-79, 261 P.3d 680 (2011). “When we review whether a trial court applied an 

incorrect legal standard, we review de novo the choice of law and its application to 

the facts in the case.” Id. at 79.

The trial court here applied an incorrect legal standard when resentencing

Anderson. Summarizing the Supreme Court’s holding in Haag, the court stated:

Where a court finds based on the approach I’ve just outlined 

and the facts of the case that a minimum sentence above 25 years 

is appropriate, our State Supreme Court has held that there’s a 

limitation on the length of sentence the court may impose. The court

must not impose a sentence that would amount to a de facto life 

sentence. That is the recent decision of the State Supreme Court in 

State v. Haag.

Thus, the trial court read Haag to impose a categorical bar prohibiting the 

imposition of de facto life sentences on all juvenile offenders. 

This same interpretation of Haag also led the trial court to reject the State’s 

recommended sentence. The State proposed a 45-year sentence rather than a 
No. 83896-2-I/6

- 6 -

longer sentence that, the prosecutor believed, would not be permitted under Haag. 

In response, the trial court stated: 

In this case, the State proposes a minimum sentence of 45 

years. Such a sentence would mean that Mr. Anderson would not be 

released from custody until he reaches the age of 62, only one year 

shy of the age of 63 in the Haag case. For the reasons explained by

the Supreme Court in Haag, a 45-year sentence would be an 

unconstitutional de facto life sentence and this court cannot follow 

the State’s suggestion.

(Emphasis added.) Based on its interpretation of Haag, as indicated above, the 

trial court rejected the State’s recommendation and sentenced Anderson to “an 

indeterminate sentence of 33 years to life.”

Six months after the trial court resentenced Anderson, our Supreme Court 

clarified its holding in Haag as follows:

Haag is properly understood as announcing that article I, section 14 

of Washington’s constitution limits the category of juvenile offenders 

who can receive de facto life without parole (LWOP) sentences, the 

harshest punishments possible for juvenile offenders under 

Washington law. In Haag, we determined that a particular juvenile 

offender could not receive such a harsh punishment because his 

crime reflected youthful immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to 

appreciate risks and consequences. But when, as here, a juvenile 

offender’s crimes do not reflect those mitigating qualities of youth, 

Washington’s constitution does not bar a de facto LWOP sentence.

Tonelli Anderson, 200 Wn.2d at 269. Thus, contrary to the trial court’s prior 

interpretation of Haag, if a juvenile offender’s crime does not reflect the mitigating 

qualities of youth (which Tonelli Anderson states are “youthful immaturity, 

impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences”), a de facto life 

sentence is permissible. Id. The trial court here misinterpreted Haag as clarified in 

Tonelli Anderson.

Having concluded that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard 

when resentencing Anderson, we next consider whether to remand for another 
No. 83896-2-I/7

- 7 -

resentencing. Our Supreme Court has instructed us that when a trial court 

incorrectly determines the standard range or applies an incorrect legal standard in 

sentencing, as the trial court did here, “remand for resentencing is the remedy 

unless the record clearly indicates the sentencing court would have imposed the 

same sentence anyway.” State v. Parker, 132 Wn.2d 182, 192-93, 937 P.2d 575

(1997). The record here does not clearly indicate that the sentencing court would 

have imposed the same sentence anyway. That is so for at least two reasons.

First, the trial court’s misinterpretation of Haag is consequential. Based on 

its interpretation of Haag, the trial court concluded that it “must not impose a 

sentence that would amount to a de facto life sentence” and rejected the State’s 

recommended sentence, which the State itself limited to 45 years to avoid running 

afoul of Haag. (Emphasis added.) Applying Haag, the trial court erroneously 

concluded that the upper limit of the permissible sentencing range was 

substantially less than 45 years and “must allow Mr. Anderson a meaningful 

opportunity to return to society and not deprive him of a meaningful life.” But under 

Haag as clarified in Tonelli Anderson, these limitations apply only if Anderson’s

crimes do not reflect the mitigating qualities of youth. On this record, we cannot 

conclude that the sentencing court here would have imposed the same sentence

had it correctly interpreted Haag and correctly determined the permissible 

sentencing range.

Second, Tonelli Anderson requires a meaningful, individualized inquiry 

regarding “the extent to which a juvenile offender’s crime reflects youthful 

immaturity, impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” 200 

Wn.2d at 289 n.9, and no such inquiry occurred here. Anderson emphasizes the 
No. 83896-2-I/8

- 8 -

trial court’s statement at the resentencing hearing that “the three experts who 

evaluated Mr. Anderson all agreed that Mr. Anderson’s criminal conduct, as 

extreme and horrific as it was, was adolescent limited. It resulted from a form of 

transient adolescent conduct disorder.” But the trial court considered this testimony 

when applying the legal framework set forth in RCW 10.95.030(3)(b); it did not 

(because it could not) expressly consider whether Anderson’s crime reflected the

mitigating qualities of youth as required to bar a de facto life sentence under Tonelli 

Anderson.

The differences between the Miller-fix analysis and the Tonelli Anderson

considerations are significant. Under RCW 10.95.030(3)(b), courts must consider 

“the age of the individual, the youth’s childhood and life experience, the degree of 

responsibility the youth was capable of exercising, and the youth’s chances of 

becoming rehabilitated.” Additionally, our Supreme Court emphasized in Haag 

“that Miller-fix hearings must be forward looking, not backward looking.” 198 Wn.2d 

at 322. Under Tonelli Anderson, in contrast, “Washington courts should consider 

the extent to which a juvenile offender’s crime reflects youthful immaturity, 

impetuosity, or failure to appreciate risks and consequences.” 200 Wn.2d at 289 

n.9. This analysis focuses on the juvenile offender’s crime—not on the youth’s 

chances of becoming rehabilitated—and is in that sense backward rather than 

forward looking. Because these tests differ substantially, we cannot say that the 

record here clearly establishes that the trial court would have imposed the same 

sentence had it applied the legal framework in Tonelli Anderson in addition to the 

Miller-fix analysis in RCW 10.95.030(3)(b).
No. 83896-2-I/9

- 9 -

For the above reasons, we remand the matter so that the trial court here, 

like the trial court in Tonelli Anderson, can properly exercise its discretion “following 

meaningful consideration of mitigation evidence and the circumstances of 

Anderson’s offenses.” 200 Wn.2d at 292. As State v. Solis-Diaz confirms, “the 

sentencing court must conduct a meaningful, individualized inquiry into whether 

[Anderson’s] youth should mitigate his sentence.” 194 Wn. App. 129, 132, 376 

P.3d 458 (2016), rev’d on other grounds, 187 Wn.2d 535, 387 P.3d 703 (2017). 

Without the benefit of the Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Tonelli 

Anderson, the trial court could not—and did not—conduct this meaningful and 

individualized inquiry. The court should do so on remand.

III

The State properly appealed the trial court’s sentencing ruling under RAP 

2.2(b)(6)(B). Because the trial court misinterpreted controlling case law regarding 

de facto life sentences of juvenile offenders, we remand for resentencing. 

WE CONCUR: