Court Opinion

ID: 9898207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:09.619518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.225031
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                        No. 84262-5-I
                       Respondent,

               v.                                       DIVISION ONE

GABRIEL MORALES,
                                                        UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                       Respondent.

       CHUNG, J. — In 2013, Gabriel Morales was sentenced based on an offender

score that included convictions for drug possession. During Blake 1 resentencing, the

trial court subtracted the drug possession convictions from Morales’s offender score but

added additional points for subsequent felony convictions. The recalculated offender

score resulted in the same standard range for sentencing, and the court ultimately

entered the same term of confinement. Morales appeals, claiming that inclusion of new

convictions violates his right to due process and chills his right to appeal. We affirm.

                                               FACTS

       In November 2013, Gabriel Morales pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining a

controlled substance by forged or altered prescription. At that time, Morales had an

offender score of nine, with three of the points stemming from convictions for

       1 In 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court held the drug possession statute unconstitutional

and voided all drug possession convictions. State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Post-
Blake, defendants whose offender scores include points for convictions for simple possession must be
resentenced based on offender scores recalculated without those convictions. State v. Edwards, 23 Wn.
App. 2d 118, 122, 514 P.3d 692 (2022).
No. 84262-5-I/2

possession of a controlled substance. This offender score established a standard range

sentence of 12 months and one day to 24 months. The parties entered an agreed

recommendation for 18 months of incarceration. The trial court accepted the

recommendation and sentenced Morales to 18 months of confinement. Morales did not

appeal and has completed his sentence.

        Morales was resentenced pursuant to Blake. The parties agreed that removal of

the possession convictions decreased Morales’s offender score from nine to five. 2

However, at the time of his resentencing, Morales had three new felony convictions

from 2017. These subsequent convictions added three points to Morales’s offender

score, bringing the total to eight. An offender score of eight yielded the same standard

sentencing range as at the original sentencing, of 12 months and one day to 24 months.

The court sentenced Morales to 18 months of incarceration, the same as his original

term of confinement.

        Morales appeals.

                                            DISCUSSION

I. Additional Points on Resentencing

        Morales argues that inclusion of his subsequent convictions in his offender score

on resentencing violated due process, chilled his right to appeal, and undermined the

Blake court’s commitment to addressing institutional racism.

        2 According to his conviction history, Morales had three convictions for possession and one

conviction for delivery of a controlled substance prior to his November 2013 conviction. Although only the
possession convictions were required to be removed under Blake, the court and parties agreed to reduce
his offender score to five.

                                                    2
No. 84262-5-I/3

        A.      Due Process and the Right to Appeal

        The United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution prohibit the state

from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; CONST. art. I, § 3. Washington’s due process right is

coextensive with the federal right. In re Pers. Restraint of Dyer, 143 Wn.2d 384, 394, 20

P.3d 907 (2001). According to Morales, inclusion of subsequent convictions in a Blake

resentencing violates due process by chilling the right to appeal because he “must

either forego his right to correct errors through the appeal process, or vindicate his

rights and be penalized for it.”

        Penalizing a defendant for successfully pursuing the right to appeal or a collateral

remedy violates due process. State v. Brown, 193 Wn.2d 280, 288, 440 P.3d 962

(2019). However, “[t]he due process clause is not offended by all possibilities of

increased punishment upon retrial after appeal but only those that pose a realistic

likelihood of vindictiveness.” Id. at 294. The presumption of vindictiveness “does not

arise when the total sentence upon resentencing is not greater than the original

sentence imposed.” Id. at 293-94.

        This same due process claim regarding a Blake resentencing was rejected in

State v. Harris, No. 83341-3-I, slip op. at 4-9 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2023)

(unpublished) https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/833413.pdf. 3 There, Harris

pointed to nothing in the record reflecting any likelihood of vindictiveness by the trial

court. Id. at 6. Also relevant here, the trial court in Harris “imposed the same sentence it

        3 While Harris is not binding on us, we find its reasoning persuasive and may properly cite and

discuss it as “necessary for a reasoned decision.” GR 14.1(c).

                                                    3
No. 84262-5-I/4

imposed before, not a harsher one.” Id. For these reasons, the Harris court held that

“Harris’s due process claim fails.” Id.

        Similarly, here, Morales has not provided any evidence of vindictiveness during

resentencing. At the resentencing, the superior court followed the Sentencing Reform

Act of 1981 (SRA) provision that “[p]rior convictions that were not included in criminal

history or in the offender score shall be included upon any resentencing to ensure

imposition of an accurate sentence.” RCW 9.94A.525(22). And even including the

subsequent convictions, Morales received the same standard range sentence as in the

original sentence. 4 Without a greater sentence or any indication of vindictiveness by the

trial court, Morales’s due process claim fails.

        Morales also claims that recalculating an offender score to include subsequent

convictions violates due process by chilling the exercise of his constitutional right to

challenge his sentence. In support, Morales cites State v. Sims, 171 Wn.2d 436, 440,

256 P.3d 285 (2011), and In re Pers. Restraint of Cranshaw, 196 Wn.2d 325, 326, 472

P.3d 989 (2020). Both cases, however, are distinguishable. 5 In Sims, the defendant

received a SSOSA 6 and appealed as unconstitutional a community custody condition

imposed as part of the sentence. 171 Wn.2d at 440. The State conceded the error and

without filing a cross-appeal, raised the issue of whether the superior court should be

allowed to reconsider the defendant’s SSOSA during resentencing. Id. Division Two

        4 The majority in Brown held that in making this determination, a court looks to the “total

aggregate” of prison time imposed at the two sentencing hearings, rather than the “aggregate remainder”
approach, in which the comparison is between the remaining sentence once the dropped convictions are
factored out and the new sentence. 193 Wn.2d at 290-91, 293-94.
        5 The same arguments were addressed and rejected in Harris, No. 83341-3-I, slip op. at 5-10.
        6 Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative.

                                                     4
No. 84262-5-I/5

accepted the concession and remanded for resentencing, stating that the trial court

could either reimpose the SSOSA with a corrected condition or deny the SSOSA

altogether. Id. at 441. On review, the Washington Supreme Court relied on RAP

2.4(a), 7 to hold that the court had erred in remanding for a full resentencing. Id. at 449.

The court characterized the State’s request to revoke the SSOSA as affirmative relief,

and concluded that the necessities of the case did not require such relief. Id. at 443-44.

The court also noted the chilling effect on the defendant’s constitutional right to appeal,

stating that the court of appeals had “undervalued how compelling Sims’s argument

about the chilling effect is.” Id. at 448. The court reasoned, “Because SSOSA sentences

are of such high value to defendants, they would be unlikely to risk appealing even

abhorrently unlawful or unconstitutional sentencing conditions for fear of risking the

underlying SSOSA sentence.” Id. at 447.

        In Cranshaw, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced on several

convictions relating to victims B.B. and S.H. 196 Wn.2d at 326. The appellate court

reversed the convictions as to B.B. and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 326. As to S.H.,

however, the court affirmed the convictions, so Cranshaw was resentenced on the

affirmed counts. Id. On retrial, a jury convicted the defendant for the crimes against

B.B., and he was sentenced separately for those convictions. Id. at 327. As a result of

the separate sentencings, the defendant received a substantially longer sentence than

he would have had he been sentenced on all of the convictions on the same day. Id.

The Washington Supreme Court granted Cranshaw’s personal restraint petition, holding

         7 RAP 2.4(a) states that the appellate court will grant affirmative relief to a respondent who has

not filed a notice of cross-appeal only “if demanded by the necessities of the case.”

                                                      5
No. 84262-5-I/6

that the “unique circumstances” warranted resentencing as if all convictions were

sentenced in a single proceeding, because he “was effectively punished for a direct

appeal that succeeded in obtaining a new trial.” Id. at 328.

        In both Cranshaw and Sims, successful appeals led to imposition or threat of a

harsher sentence on remand without additional criminal conduct by the defendant. The

result was a potential chilling of the constitutional right to appeal. Unlike in Cranshaw

and Sims, Morales’s successful appeal did not lead to the imposition or threat of a

harsher sentence on remand without additional criminal conduct by the defendant.

Rather, Morales engaged in subsequent criminal activities resulting in additional

convictions. His sentences consequently remained the same, despite reduction of his

offender score under Blake, because he had additional convictions that were included in

scoring pursuant to RCW 9.94A.525(22). On this record, Cranshaw and Sims are

inapposite.

        Morales contends that even if RCW 9.94A.525(22) “appears to allow the court to

enter points for post-sentencing convictions,” 8 he has the right to challenge his

unconstitutional convictions and sentence “without a statute chilling his right to bring

these challenges.” Morales correctly notes that courts construe statutes to avoid

constitutional doubt. See Blake, 197 Wn.2d at 188. However, as the above discussion

shows, there is no “chilling” effect here because Morales did not receive a harsher

sentence on resentencing. Morales also fails to provide an alternative interpretation of
        8 RCW 9.94A.525(1)(a) states that “[a] prior conviction is a conviction which exists before the date

of sentencing for the offense for which the offender score is being computed.” The court in State v.
Collicott, interpreting the predecessor statute that contained the same language as RCW 9.94A.525(1),
held that a conviction after the first sentencing but prior to resentencing was properly counted as a prior
offense. 118 Wn.2d 649, 653, 827 P.2d 263 (1992).

                                                      6
No. 84262-5-I/7

RCW 9.94A.525(22) and legal argument in support, nor is any such alternative

interpretation apparent here. 9 Under the arguments as presented, Morales’s

resentencing did not violate due process.

        B.       Undermining Commitment to Address Institutional Racism

        Morales argues that including subsequent convictions in offender scores

undermines the Blake court’s attempt “to remedy racially disparate drug enforcement

practices and the compounding effect this disparity has in future sentencing.” Blake

acknowledged that court decisions and “[t]he drug statute that they interpreted ha[ve]

affected thousands upon thousands of lives, and its impact has hit young men of color

especially hard.” 197 Wn.2d at 192. This statement came in the context of the court’s

explanation that the legislature was not ignorant of prior decisions construing the simple

drug possession statute as lacking a required mens rea. Id. at 191-92. The court noted

the racial impact of the simple possession statute and held the statute unconstitutional,

but made no comment on the parameters for resentencing in light of the decision.

        We are likewise mindful of the racially disproportionate impact of the drug

possession statute and the importance of recognizing structural and institutional racism

in sentencing. But Morales has not provided argument or authority as to why these

unfortunate statistics mandate a different approach in Blake resentencings generally, or,

specifically, in calculating an offender score. Any changes to the SRA must come from

        9 “[P]assing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial

consideration.” Joy v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,170 Wn. App. 614, 629, 285 P.3d 187 (2012) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (internal citation omitted); RAP 10.3(a)(6). Relevant here, Morales makes no
argument that the term “prior conviction” in RCW 9.94A.525(1) or (22) can or should be interpreted
differently in a resentencing or that the “date of sentencing” can or should be read to refer to the original
sentencing, not the resentencing.

                                                      7
No. 84262-5-I/8

the legislature. In re Pers. Restraint of Forcha-Williams, 200 Wn.2d 581, 590-92, 520

P.3d 939 (2022).

II. Statement of Additional Ground (SAG)

       Morales also filed a SAG in which he argues that his 2013 guilty plea was

involuntary because his offender score was improperly calculated in light of Blake.

Morales originally raised this issue in superior court as a motion to vacate his plea. The

court correctly transferred the motion to this court for consideration as a personal

restraint petition as required by CrR 7.8(c)(2). This court reviewed the petition and

dismissed it as untimely. The Washington State Supreme Court declined review on

January 20, 2023. On April 10, 2023, this court’s order terminating review became final.

Our prior order is and remains dispositive on this point. We will not permit Morales to

revisit the issue of the voluntariness of his plea agreement in this direct appeal.

       Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

                                             8