Opinion ID: 1186195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State v. James

Text: Defendant James pleaded guilty to first degree burglary with sexual motivation. At the time of the guilty plea, the State claims it was aware of just one prior strike in James' criminal historya 1981 Pierce County conviction for first degree assault with the intent to commit rape. James' sentencing range, given his perceived criminal history of one prior conviction, was 26-to-34 months. The burglary victims were upset with the low sentencing range for James' offense, so they hired a law firm to represent them in urging the court to impose an exceptional sentence on James. It appears one of the victim's attorneys discovered James had been court-martialed in 1979 for sodomy, robbery and attempted rape. After this discovery, the State filed a motion requesting the court to declare the court-martial as a prior strike and sentence James to life in prison as a persistent offender. In the alternative, the State urged the court to vacate James' guilty plea, without precluding the State from seeking a persistent offender status should James subsequently be tried and convicted. The trial court determined the court-martial counted toward James' offender score under the SRA, but the court prohibited the State from seeking a life sentence under I-593, stating: [I]t would be unconscionable for the State to do so because at the time the parties entered into plea negotiations neither contemplated that the military Court-Martial conviction was a prior conviction for purposes of sentencing under the Sentencing Reform Act. The Court makes no finding that the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office knew of the existence of the prior Court-Martial conviction of the defendant. Clerk's Papers at 125. The court determined James' new sentencing range, with his court-martial factored into the offender score, was 41-to-52 months. The court then found an exceptional sentence was justified, and on July 14, 1995, James was sentenced to 108 months in prison. The State appeals, arguing it should be allowed to seek a life sentence for James under I-593. James cross-appeals, claiming courts-martial are unconstitutional and cannot be counted as prior strikes under I-593 or used to increase his offender score. The record before us reveals the details of James' 1979 court-martial. He pleaded guilty to charges of sodomy, robbery, and attempted rape. After his conviction, he submitted a written request for appellate defense counsel, which was granted. The convening authority reviewed his court-martial and modified the sentence. James then appealed, and the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction but further modified the sentence. James was given written notice of his right to petition the United States Court of Military Appeals for grant of review, but the record does not show any petition being filed. As a preliminary matter, we must limit the scope of our holding. There are four different levels of courts-martial described in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.). 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-941. The lowest level of court-martial is commonly referred to as an Article 15 proceeding. 10 U.S.C. § 815 (entitled Commanding officer's non-judicial punishment). The next three levels of proceedings are summary courts-martial, special courts-martial, and general courts-martial. 10 U.S.C. § 816. Both Defendants in these cases were tried by general courts-martial, so we restrict our analysis solely to general courts-martial. Our use of the term court-martial throughout this decision should be read as encompassing only general courts-martial, unless otherwise noted.