Opinion ID: 2599993
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Effect on other sentence enhancements

Text: ¶ 34 The majority's logic and sweeping language also raises doubts about how other sentence enhancements should be read. For instance, several subsections in RCW 69.50.435(1) subject an offender to a sentence enhancement for selling drugs to a person who is [i]n a school, [w]ithin one thousand feet of the perimeter of the school grounds, [i]n a public park, [i]n a public transit stop shelter, or located in another such place. As in RCW 9.94A.533(5), the statute levies an additional punishment for a person who commits a drug offense while in a specific location. As in RCW 9.94A.533(5), the statute merely describes an attendant circumstance accompanying a substantive crime defined in another statute. Under the logic of the majority, however, RCW 69.50.435 presumably would not apply unless the prosecution affirmatively proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily entered the enhancement zone.