Opinion ID: 2571543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Convictions are Punishments for Purposes of Double Jeopardy

Text: ¶ 25 The State argues Womac's three convictions should stand since he was sentenced for homicide by abuse only. Br. of Resp't at 38. The trial judge also determined double jeopardy concerns are implicated only when a defendant receives more than one sentence. 6 VRP at 1042-43. This determination is incorrect. That Womac received only one sentence is of no matter as he still suffers the punitive consequences of his convictions. Counsel for Womac correctly asserts, if Mr. Womac were to get into some trouble in prison and be charged with a crime, these convictions for murder in the second degree and assault in the second [sic] degree would have to count in his offender score . . . because they are still alive [and] have not been vacated. . . . 7 VRP at 1071-72. ¶ 26 In Calle we held double jeopardy may be violated when a defendant receives multiple convictions for a single offense (regardless of whether concurrent sentences are imposed). Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 775, 888 P.2d 155; see also In re Pers. Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash.2d 795, 100 P.3d 291 (2004). Relying on Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), this Court found the stigma and impeachment value of multiple convictions remains despite passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A, [7] and overruled a line of cases following the concurrent sentence rule. [8] Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 775, 888 P.2d 155. In Gohl the State conceded the convictions for attempted murder and assault were based on the same acts and caused the same harm but argued lack of sentencing for the assaults avoided any double jeopardy violation. Gohl, 109 Wash.App. at 819, 37 P.3d 293. The court countered, [the State's] argument contradicts the rule that conviction, and not merely imposition of a sentence, constitutes punishment. Id. at 822, 37 P.3d 293. ¶ 27 Both federal and state courts have cited Ball for the proposition that double jeopardy concerns arise in the presence of multiple convictions, regardless of whether resulting sentences are imposed consecutively or concurrently. Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 773, 888 P.2d 155. The Supreme Court in Ball emphasized the punitive nature of a conviction, finding: The separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored. For example, the presence of two convictions on the record may delay the defendant's eligibility for parole or result in an increased sentence under a recidivist statute for a future offense. Moreover, the second conviction may be used to impeach the defendant's credibility and certainly carries the societal stigma accompanying any criminal conviction. Ball, 470 U.S. at 865, 105 S.Ct. 1668. ¶ 28 As this court noted in Calle, [i]t is important to distinguish between charges and convictions  the State may properly file an information charging multiple counts under various statutory provisions where evidence supports the charges, even though convictions may not stand for all offenses where double jeopardy protections are violated. Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777 n. 3, 888 P.2d 155 (emphasis added) (citing Ball, 470 U.S. at 860, 105 S.Ct. 1668). See also Johnson, 92 Wash.2d at 679, 600 P.2d 1249 (Conviction in itself, even without imposition of sentence, carries an unmistakable onus which has a punitive effect. . . . ).