Opinion ID: 2546552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Daniel D. Hughes

Text: ¶ 11 Daniel D. Hughes was charged with first degree theft for cutting down old growth cedar trees. Hughes was found guilty of first degree theft. ¶ 12 At trial, a forest technician testified that the market value of the trees taken was $4,465. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Apr. 15, 16, 2003) at 83. However, at the sentencing hearing, a United States Forest Service ecologist testified that the actual value of the trees stolen, consisting of both monetary and ecological components, was $145,599. RP (May 23, 2003) at 13. Based on Hughes' offender score, the standard range sentence would have been three to nine months. The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence of 90 months. In support of that exceptional sentence, the court made the following relevant conclusions: (1) The facts at issue were sufficiently substantial and compelling to distinguish [the] crime from other theft in the first degree; (2) The crime was a major economic offense because the actual monetary loss of the victim was substantially greater than typical for Theft in the First Degree; (3) The harm to the environment was severe, and not considered by the Legislature in setting the standard range; (4) The defendant's rapid recidivism was another aggravating factor, which also was not considered by the Legislature in setting the standard range; (5) The defendant's ongoing pattern of the same criminal conduct is another aggravating factor, which is sufficiently substantial and compelling to distinguish this Theft in the First Degree from others in the same category. CP (Hughes) at 22-23. The court went on to state that any one of the aggravating factors found would support the exceptional sentence of 90 months. The court also ordered restitution of $145,000. Id. at 15. ¶ 13 Hughes sought direct review by this court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence upon which he was convicted, the amount of restitution ordered, the exceptional sentence, and that he was denied his right to allocution. This court granted direct review. Hughes subsequently filed a supplemental brief raising new assignments of error under Blakely, and his case was consolidated with Anderson and Selvidge. Because Hughes comes to us on direct review, we consider Hughes' other assignments of error in addition to the Blakely issues.