Opinion ID: 1195113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Departure From the Standard Range is Justified in This Case as a Matter of Law

Text: The second part of RCW 9.94A.210(4)(a) requires us to independently determine, as a matter of law, if the sentencing judge's reasons justify the imposition of a sentence outside the presumptive range. The reasons must be substantial and compelling, RCW 9.94A.120(2), and must take into account factors other than those which are necessarily considered in computing the presumptive range for the offense. State v. Nordby, 106 Wash.2d 514, 518, 723 P.2d 1117 (1986); Nelson, 108 Wash.2d at 498-99, 740 P.2d 835. This criterion is met because the elements of entrapment are specifically listed in RCW 9.94A.390(1)(d) as mitigating circumstances which a sentencing court may consider in exercising its discretion to impose an exceptional sentence. We recognized as much in Nelson, holding: Lack of predisposition and inducement by others to commit the crime is one of the mitigating factors listed under RCW 9.94A.390[(1)(d)]. Therefore, as a matter of law, this factor justifies the imposition of a nonstandard sentence. Nelson, 108 Wash.2d at 499, 740 P.2d 835 (emphasis added).