Court Opinion

ID: 9949577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 21:16:54.946585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:02.629248
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                        DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                               No. 85230-2-I
                    Respondent.
                                              DIVISION ONE
      v.
                                              UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DOMINIC DAVID WILSON,

                    Appellant.

      PER CURIAM — Dominic Wilson appeals from the judgment and sentence entered

upon his plea of guilty to one count of murder in the second degree while armed with a

firearm—an offense he committed at age 16. He argues that the trial court, which

sentenced Wilson to an adult standard-range sentence above what the parties jointly

recommended, erred by not giving meaningful consideration to his youth at the time of

his offense. The State acknowledges that “there is no indication in the record how the

defendant’s youthfulness impacted the court’s [sentencing] decision.” It thus concedes

that the matter should be remanded for resentencing.

      We accept the State’s concession. Cf. State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1,

21, 23, 391 P.3d 409 (2017) (court sentencing juvenile must consider mitigating

circumstances related to the defendant’s youth; it must also consider factors “like the

nature of the juvenile’s surrounding environment and family circumstances, the extent of

the juvenile’s participation in the crime, . . . ‘the way familial and peer pressures may

have affected him [or her],’ . . . [and] how youth impacted any legal defense, along with
No. 852302-I/2

any factors suggesting that the child might be successfully rehabilitated” (second

alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477-78, 132 S. Ct. 2455,

183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012))). Accordingly, we reverse Wilson’s sentence and remand to

the trial court for resentencing. Cf. In re Pers. Restraint of Carrasco, 1 Wn.3d 224, 230,

525 P.3d 196 (2023) (“On direct appeal, the defendant needs only to establish the

existence of [a] Houston-Sconiers error to be entitled to a new sentencing hearing.”).

      Reversed and remanded.

                                   FOR THE COURT:

                                         -2-