Opinion ID: 1143496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: exceptional sentence authority

Text: The Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission recently observed that [s]tandard sentences cannot include treatment conditions or any requirement for affirmative behavior which is not designated as a `crime-related prohibition.' D. Fallen, Preliminary Evaluation of Washington State's Sentencing Reform Act, at xii (1986). As we explained earlier in this opinion, because of Bernhard's repeat offender status, the standard community supervision sentence cannot include inpatient treatment. Recognizing this limitation, the trial court sentenced Bernhard to Teen Challenge by invoking its authority to impose an exceptional sentence. RCW 9.94A.120(2). The State challenges the trial court's interpretation of its sentencing authority, arguing that an exceptional sentence cannot be used to impose conditions outside of those allowed under the standard community supervision sentence. We disagree. [4] The SRA authorizes a trial court to impose exceptional sentences outside the standard sentence range. RCW 9.94A.120(2). In prior cases, we have recognized that one element of the standard range is the durational length of the sentence as listed in the sentencing grid, RCW 9.94A.310. See, e.g., State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wn.2d 525, 723 P.2d 1123 (1986); State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 182-83, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986). At issue here is whether the Legislature intended sentence range to mean the conditions of the punishment imposed, as well as the duration of the sentence. Our previous decisions imply that exceptional sentences are not limited to the durational element. See, e.g., Oxborrow, at 529. [1] Nevertheless, to determine the Legislature's intent, we must look first to the language of the SRA. See Service Employees Int'l, Local 6 v. Superintendent of Pub. Instruction, 104 Wn.2d 344, 705 P.2d 776 (1985). Although somewhat ambiguous on the issue, the statutory language suggests that standard range is a multifaceted concept embracing both the duration and conditions of the sentence imposed. The SRA defines sentence range as the sentencing court's discretionary range in imposing a nonappealable sentence. Former RCW 9.94A.030(16) (now codified at RCW 9.94A.030(22)). Examination of the various parts of the SRA demonstrates that the trial court's discretionary range for a community supervision sentence extends to both the duration of the sentence and to the conditions imposed. The Legislature expressly instructed the Commission that each standard range should include one or more of the various sentencing categories: total confinement, partial confinement, community supervision, community service, and a fine. RCW 9.94A.040(3). Every SRA sentence outside of the standard range must be a determinate sentence, RCW 9.94A.120(3), the definition of which reflects the dual elements of length and category of punishment. RCW 9.94A.030(10). While the presumptive sentence ranges listed in the sentencing grid are expressed in terms of total confinement, RCW 9.94A.370, the trial court has discretion to impose community supervision in lieu of total confinement for all sentences of 1 year or less. RCW 9.94A.383. Within the community supervision category, the Legislature has provided trial courts with a structured discretionary range of crime-related prohibitions and other sentence conditions. RCW 9.94A.030(4). More specifically, the dual elements of duration and conditions of a community supervision sentence are reflected in the first-time offender provision, RCW 9.94A.120(5), a provision the Legislature expressly characterized as coming within the standard range. RCW 9.94A.210(1). We think the statutory language indicates that a trial court's power to go outside the standard sentence range includes authority to impose community supervision conditions not ordinarily permitted. Nevertheless, we recognize that the statutory language is subject to more than one interpretation. We therefore think it appropriate to examine legislative history for further evidence of the Legislature's intent. Department of Transp. v. State Employees' Ins. Bd., 97 Wn.2d 454, 458, 645 P.2d 1076 (1982). The Legislature patterned the SRA on a similar determinate sentencing scheme already operating in Minnesota. In re Myers, 105 Wn.2d 257, 266, 714 P.2d 303 (1986). Under the Minnesota system, courts may go outside standard sentencing guidelines either as to the duration or the disposition of the sentence. See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1983). The dispositional departure results from a Minnesota court's ability to stay a sentence and impose probationary conditions of their own choosing. D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington § 9.3, at 9-9 (1985). Because Washington courts no longer have the express authority to defer or suspend a sentence, except for special sexual offenders, RCW 9.94A.130, dispositional departures do not exist under the SRA. D. Boerner § 9.3, at 9-9. However, the Minnesota guidelines do not specify the conditions of probation, applying only to the decision whether to impose an immediate prison sentence or to grant probation. D. Boerner § 9.3, at 9-9. By contrast, while the SRA terminated Washington courts' authority to defer or suspend a sentence, the Legislature has provided a discretionary range of crime-related prohibitions and sentence conditions, which the trial court may impose as part of a community supervision sentence. See RCW 9.94A.030(4), (7). We have recently recognized similarities between the decision to impose community supervision under the SRA and imposition of probation under the prior indeterminate sentencing regime. State v. Nelson, 108 Wn.2d 491, 504, 740 P.2d 835 (1987). Moreover, when the Legislature amended the SRA to create a separate community supervision section during the 1984 session, RCW 9.94A.383, it described the amendment as providing express authority to suspend or defer the sentences of felons sentenced to a year or less in jail. Final Bill Report, SHB 1247, 48th Legislature (1984), Synopsis as Enacted, at 3. While this description probably overstates the actual effect of RCW 9.94A.383, it does demonstrate a legislative intent that community supervision would provide trial courts with structured discretion for imposing sentence conditions other than confinement. In the most recent legislative session, the Legislature recognized community supervision as the functional equivalent of probation for certain purposes. Second Substitute House Bill 684, § 1, 50th Legislature (1987). Because of the similarities between community supervision and probation, recognized by both this court and the Legislature, we conclude that although the Legislature did not intend to grant the authority to depart as to the disposition of a sentence, it did provide trial courts with the ability to depart from the discretionary range of conditions imposed by a community supervision sentence. Our conclusion becomes inescapable, given the Commission's most recent statement on the SRA. According to a report issued by the Commission just a few months ago, [t]here are no restrictions on conditions or length of community supervision for exceptional sentences. D. Fallen, Preliminary Evaluation of Washington State's Sentencing Reform Act 33 (1986). Exceptional sentences may be imposed to ... [s]et sentence conditions not otherwise permitted for a given offender... Preliminary Evaluation of Washington State's Sentencing Reform Act, at 9. [2] Thus, statutory language and legislative history demonstrate that the Legislature intended RCW 9.94A.120(2) as authorization for trial courts to impose sentences outside the range of conditions allowed under a standard community supervision sentence. The grant of such authority furthers the legislative purposes expressed in the SRA, as well as the specific purpose underlying the exceptional sentence provision. Essentially, the Legislature designed the SRA in order to establish a structured, but still discretionary, sentencing scheme built upon the principle of just retribution. D. Boerner § 2.5(b), at 2-34. Punishment, the paramount goal, State v. Rice, 98 Wn.2d 384, 393, 655 P.2d 1145 (1982), is reflected in the first three purposes enumerated by the Legislature. RCW 9.94A.010(1)-(3). At the same time, the Legislature also intended to accomplish certain future oriented utilitarian goals such as [p]rotect[ing] the public, RCW 9.94A.010(4), and [o]ffer[ing] the offender an opportunity to improve him or herself ... RCW 9.94A.010(5); see D. Boerner § 2.5(a), at 2-34. The principles of punishment and just retribution operate to set the upper and lower limits of the duration and the nature of the standard sentencing range. Decisions as to the specific sentence imposed reflect the SRA's utilitarian concerns. D. Boerner § 2.5(b), at 2-34. In providing offenders with a chance of self-improvement, the SRA continues a commitment to rehabilitation, albeit to a lesser degree than under the indeterminate sentencing system. See Rice, at 393; D. Boerner § 2.5(c), at 2-35. While the SRA continues to deem court ordered participation appropriate for first-time offenders, RCW 9.94A.120(5), and sex offenders, RCW 9.94A.120(7), standard range sentences for other offenders cannot require, as a condition of sentence, any affirmative actions, such as participation in rehabilitation programs. RCW 9.94A.030(7). Nevertheless, the Legislature designed the exceptional sentence provision because no predetermined structure ... could accommodate every individual factual situation. D. Boerner § 9.1, at 9-1. Because not all exceptional fact patterns [could] be anticipated, Washington Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manual § 9.94A.390, comment, at II-38 (1984), the drafters recognized that the sentencing court must be permitted to tailor the sentence to the facts of each particular case. Oxborrow, at 530. Thus, the exceptional sentence provision allows the necessary individualization in exceptional cases while insuring consistency with [the articulated purposes] for which punishment is to be imposed. D. Boerner § 9.1, at 9.1. Bernhard's particular situation highlights the wisdom underlying the Legislature's decision to provide some discretion for trial courts to go outside the standard range of community supervision conditions. In sentencing Bernhard to Teen Challenge, the trial court entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with RCW 9.94A.120(3). As the substantial and compelling reasons in support of its decision, required by RCW 9.94A.120(2), the trial court listed the following: (1) Bernhard's serious addictions to alcohol and drugs substantially contributed to his commission of this and prior offenses; (2) given Bernard's criminal history and addictions, incarceration would not prevent the commission of further crimes unless Bernhard received adequate treatment for his addictions; (3) the defense proposed the Teen Challenge inpatient treatment alternative; (4) Teen Challenge offered a long-term inpatient treatment program, consisting of total and partial confinement as required under RCW 9.94A.180; and (5) society would be better protected by placing Bernhard, at his own request, in a rehabilitative program like Teen Challenge, under court order to remain at the facility and abide by all rules and regulations. [5] To review the trial court's exceptional sentence, we look to the standards supplied in RCW 9.94A.210(4). State v. Armstrong, 106 Wn.2d 547, 549, 723 P.2d 1111 (1986). No one challenges the trial court's sentence under the too excessive or too lenient standard. RCW 9.94A.210(4)(b). [3] Consequently, this case requires us to consider only subsection (a) of RCW 9.94A.210(4), which consists of two parts. State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 517, 723 P.2d 1117 (1986). First, we apply a clearly erroneous standard to determine whether the sentencing judge's reasons are supported by the record. Nordby, at 518. Here, the trial court based its conclusions on expert testimony and the State has not challenged the accuracy of any of the entered findings. In fact, the prosecutor expressly acknowledged that if the trial court had the power to sentence Bernhard to Teen Challenge, both the public and Bernhard would be better served. [6] Our second inquiry under RCW 9.94A.210(4)(a) requires us to independently determine, as a matter of law, if the sentencing judge's reasons justify the imposition of a sentence outside the presumptive range. Nordby, at 518. Although the statute lists aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered when imposing a nonstandard range sentence, see RCW 9.94A.390, the list is illustrative rather than exclusive. Armstrong, at 550. Here, the State's only challenge to the trial court's reasons concerns the propriety of considering Bernhard's addictions to drugs and alcohol. The State correctly points out that the voluntary use of drugs and alcohol cannot be considered under former RCW 9.94A.390(5) (now codified at RCW 9.94A.390(1)(e)). However, subsection (5) deals explicitly with the defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his crime. Former RCW 9.94A.390(5). By contrast, the trial court considered Bernhard's addictions, not in the context of diminished capacity, but rather as a direct cause of Bernhard's criminal conduct, from which the public could not be protected unless Bernhard received treatment for his addictions. Given the circumstances of this case, the SRA's utilitarian purposes could not have been served by a sentence that did not include some form of inpatient treatment for Bernhard's drug and alcohol addictions. As the trial court concluded after hearing expert testimony, Bernhard's criminal behavior directly resulted from these addictions. Placing Bernhard in a work release facility, as the State suggested, would not have protected the public from future criminal behavior. See RCW 9.94A.010(4). While the Legislature has concluded generally that coerced rehabilitation is ineffective for repeat offenders, D. Boerner § 2.5(c), Bernhard stepped forward and asked for the opportunity to improve himself, which the SRA expressly establishes as one of its utilitarian purposes. See RCW 9.94A.010(5). Sentencing Bernhard to Teen Challenge also meets the SRA's goal of just retribution. First, the sentence serves the legislative intent to devise sentences that emphasize confinement for the violent offender and alternatives to total confinement for the nonviolent offender. RCW 9.94A.040(5). Sentencing nonviolent offenders, whose criminal activity resulted directly from their substance addiction, to facilities with strenuous programs, such as Teen Challenge, [p]romote[s] respect for the law by providing punishment which is just. RCW 9.94A.010(2). Second, the 12-month sentence is at the top end of the durational range allowed for second degree burglary, and the nature of the Teen Challenge program amounts to a sentence of near total confinement. As a result, Bernhard's sentence also constitutes punishment in proportion to the offense committed. RCW 9.94A.010(1). In sum, the SRA continues to provide trial courts with a measure of discretion, but changes the parameters in which the discretion can be exercised. State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 181, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986). For felons sentenced to more than 1 year, trial courts have no discretion to select the place of confinement. When a sentence is imposed for 1 year or less, the trial court has the limited discretion to select from the list of available county facilities as defined by RCW 70.48.020. Although Teen Challenge's status as a special detention facility under RCW 70.48.020(3) remains undetermined, the trial court correctly invoked its authority to sentence Bernhard pursuant to the exceptional sentence provision. RCW 9.94A.120(2). Exceptional sentences outside the standard range of community supervision conditions become appropriate when considering the purpose of [the SRA] there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence. RCW 9.94A.120(2). In Bernhard's case, we find that the SRA's purpose is best served by sentencing Bernhard to the near total confinement of the Teen Challenge treatment program. Thus, we affirm the trial court's sentence, requiring that it be imposed as an exceptional condition of a community supervision sentence imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.383. PEARSON, C.J., and BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, DORE, ANDERSEN, CALLOW, GOODLOE, and DURHAM, JJ., concur.