Opinion ID: 2546552
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rapid recidivism

Text: ¶ 38 Rapid recidivism was recognized as a valid aggravating factor in State v. Butler, 75 Wash.App. 47, 53-54, 876 P.2d 481 (1994). Amicus Curiae WAPA cites Butler as its only support for rapid recidivism as a valid aggravating factor. It argues that the only factual findings related to that aggravating factor are Hughes' prior conviction and his current offense, both of which a trial court is authorized to find under Blakely. Amicus Curiae WAPA Br. at 17. ¶ 39 Butler clearly states, however, that if rapid recidivism were solely based on prior convictions, an exceptional sentence could not be based on that factor, as the presumptive sentence ranges already consider prior convictions. Butler, 75 Wash.App. at 53-54, 876 P.2d 481. In fact, the Court of Appeals explicitly stated that [t]he trial court's findings here are distinguishable from mere criminal history. Id. at 54, 876 P.2d 481. In finding that aggravating factor, the court actually considered the especially short time period between prior incarceration and reoffense. Id. The court further stated that an exceptional sentence is justified where the circumstances show a greater disregard for the law than otherwise would be the case and found that the defendant's immediate reoffense reflected that disdain. Id. ¶ 40 Those same considerations are evident in Hughes. The trial court's findings of fact state that [l]ess than three (3) months after being released from custody [for a prior similar crime], he committed the exact same offense against the same exact victim. This offense was committed only days after the defendant sat and heard testimony about the severe harm that he had done to the forest. CP (Hughes) at 22. The judge then stated that Hughes demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law and shows a complete lack of remorse. Id. These findings are extremely similar to the court's conclusion in Butler that the short time between release from prison and reoffense demonstrated a disregard and disdain for the law. The conclusions go well beyond merely stating Hughes' prior convictions. Indeed, if that was all that the aggravating factor was based on, it could not support an exceptional sentence under Washington law. ¶ 41 The Supreme Court has made an exception to the jury requirement only for prior convictions. The findings at issue here involve new factual determinations and conclusions, such as the defendant's disregard for the law, which are not properly made by the trial court following Blakely.