Opinion ID: 2621326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: prior out-of-state conviction

Text: Petitioner John Vickers claims application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in proving a prior out-of-state conviction to establish his persistent offender status under former RCW 9.94A. 120(4) renders his sentence unconstitutional. [89] He argues that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his prior conviction based on a plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily made in order to sentence him as a persistent offender under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981(SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW. [90] He contends that remand for resentencing is required to cure the defect. Petitioner John Vicker's argument, however, is without merit. The rule he refers to applies to habitual criminal proceedings. [91] It does not apply to the persistent offender statute. [92] When sentencing a defendant under the POAA, [a]ll that is required by the constitution and the statute is a sentencing hearing where the trial judge decides by a preponderance of the evidence whether the prior convictions exist, [93] and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is not required. [94] The burden of proving prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence rests on the State. [95] The inquiry must then be made whether the State met its burden by introducing the signed docket sheet from a Massachusetts court as evidence of Petitioner John Vickers' prior conviction. [96] The docket sheet, indicating that Petitioner pleaded guilty to assault and battery by a dangerous weapon, was acknowledged by signature of a Massachusetts judge and attested as a true copy by a court clerk. [97] Although a certified copy of a judgment and sentence is the best evidence of a prior conviction, the State may introduce other documents of record or transcripts of prior proceedings to establish a defendant's criminal history. [98] In this case the signed docket sheets submitted as evidence of Petitioner's prior conviction supported the fact of his conviction.