Court Opinion

ID: 9850771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:49.024591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:43.117729
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.
I dissent. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing an exceptional sentence. The structured discretion the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) granted to the trial court in this situation is taken away by the majority. I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the trial court.
We must look to the legislative purpose behind the SRA to determine if the trial court acted properly in this case. One of the SRA's purposes is:
to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting sentences . . ..
(Italics mine.) RCW 9.94A.010.
The SRA's principle of structured discretion is illustrated by RCW 9.94A.390. This statute provides the list of mitigating and aggravating circumstances which a trial court may consider in exercising its discretion to impose an exceptional sentence. The listed circumstances are "illustrative only and are not intended to be [the] exclusive reasons for exceptional sentences." RCW 9.94A.390. *171As this court noted in State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 516, 723 P.2d 1117 (1986):
The drafters of the statute recognized that "not all exceptional fact patterns can be anticipated", Washington Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, Implementation Manual § 9.94A.390, Comment (1984), and that the trial court must tailor the sentence to the facts of each case.
See also D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington 9-1 (1985). The defendant's situation in this case presents one of the "exceptional fact patterns" that the drafters of the SRA recognized could not have been anticipated. The trial court below correctly tailored the sentence to the facts of the case.
When the defendant committed the crime, he was suffering from three medically recognized disorders: depression, severe compulsive personality and alcoholism. The majority is correct that the record does not support a finding that the three disorders separately caused Allert's impairment. However, the record does support the trial court's finding that the combined effects of these mental disorders constituted a mitigating circumstance pursuant to RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e). This finding does support the imposition of an exceptional sentence.
RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e) provides that it is a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes when:
[t]he defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct . . . was significantly impaired (voluntary use of drugs or alcohol is excluded).
RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e). RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e) does not specifically indicate whether it applies when a defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct occurs due to a combination of multiple, medically recognized mental disorders. This is particularly true when only one of these disorders involved alcohol abuse.
Also, the record in this case does not reflect that alcohol abuse alone significantly impaired the defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. One of *172the experts testified that the defendant's drinking stemmed from the defendant's depression and compulsive personality disorder. Report of Proceedings, at 13. In discussing treatment possibilities for the defendant, the same expert witness stated: "I don't think the alcohol problem should be treated unless we address the other psychiatric problems. If we don't address those, we are just treating a symptom." Report of Proceedings, at 13.
Due to the SRA's policy of structured discretion, this court should leave within the trial court's discretion the determination of whether a defendant was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct under RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e) where multiple, medically recognized mental disorders are alleged, and only one of these disorders involves substance abuse. The sentencing judge is in the best position to weigh the evidence and determine whether an exceptional sentence is warranted. This is particularly true when live testimony is involved. Determinations of credibility are to be given considerable weight. In re Deming, 108 Wn.2d 82, 110, 736 P.2d 639, 744 P.2d 340 (1987). The trial court in this case properly exercised its discretion, after evaluating the testimony and documents submitted to it, in imposing an exceptional sentence. The majority takes this discretion away, contrary to the policy behind the SRA.
The majority's reasoning in analyzing this issue is flawed. It concludes that a trial court cannot consider alcohol abuse as a factor in imposing an exceptional sentence. See majority, at 166-67. In so stating, it ignores this court's unanimous holding in State v. Bernhard, 108 Wn.2d 527, 741 P.2d 1 (1987), overruled on other grounds in State v. Shove, 113 Wn.2d 83, 776 P.2d 132 (1989).19 In Bernhard, this court upheld the imposition of an exceptional sentence, which consisted of a 12-month inpatient drug treatment program, based on the trial court's finding *173that the defendant's criminal behavior directly resulted from his addictions to drugs and alcohol. Bernhard, 108 Wn.2d at 529. Bernhard did not involve RCW 9.94A-.390(l)(e). However, the case still indicates that a trial court can consider whether or not a direct causal connection between a defendant's substance abuse and his or her criminal act is a substantial and compelling reason justifying an exceptional sentence.
Also, the majority relies on State v. Pennington, 112 Wn.2d 606, 772 P.2d 1009 (1989), in reasoning that a defendant's alcohol dependency cannot be a factor in granting an exceptional sentence. Majority, at 166, 170. In Pennington, the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence after finding that the defendant's drug dependency substantially contributed to his criminal act. This court determined that the record in Pennington did not support this finding. Pennington, 112 Wn.2d at 609. In this case, the trial court found that the defendant's three mental disorders, including the alcohol abuse, combined to impair the defendant's ability to know he was acting wrongfully. As the majority notes, the expert testimony in this case does support this finding. The defendant in this case, unlike in Pennington, did establish a causal connection between his mental disorders and his wrongful acts. As a result, Pennington is inapplicable to this case.
In addition to ignoring Bernhard and misapplying Pennington, the majority cites two Minnesota cases to support its conclusion that a trial court cannot rely on a chemical dependency problem as a factor in imposing an exceptional sentence. Neither of these cases supports this proposition. In State v. Gardner, 328 N.W.2d 159 (Minn. 1983), the court held that the trial court improperly used the defendant's drug addiction as an aggravating factor in giving the defendant an exceptional sentencé upward. Gardner is clearly distinguishable from this case, and cannot be relied on to support the majority's proposition.
Similarly, the majority relies on State v. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. 1983). In Nelson, the court held that *174while a defendant's willingness to succeed in drug treatment is not a ground for a durational departure, it is a ground for a dispositional departure in the form of a stay of execution of sentence. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d at 829. Unlike Minnesota's sentencing system, Washington's Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 does not provide for a dispositional departure in sentencing. RCW 9.94A.130; D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington 9-9 (1985). Nevertheless, substance dependency can be a factor for imposing an exceptional sentence in Minnesota.
Before looking to case law from other jurisdictions, the court should first consider the SRA's policy of structuring, not eliminating, trial court discretionary decisions affecting sentences. Moreover, the trial court was in the best position to evaluate whether the defendant's case merited an exceptional sentence. The trial court's findings of fact are entitled to deference under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. State v. Nordby, 106 Wn.2d at 517-18. RCW 9.94A.390(l)(e) provides the legal basis for the exceptional sentence in this case. The sentence of 12 months in jail and 24 months of community supervision was not "clearly too lenient" under RCW 9.94A.210(4). The trial court properly exercised the discretion granted to it by the SRA when it imposed the exceptional sentence. I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the trial court.
Utter and Guy, JJ., concur with Johnson, J.
Reconsideration denied October 22, 1991.

The lower courts had interpreted dicta in Bernhard, as allowing for a form of sentence modification not provided for by the SRA. In Shove, the court overruled that dicta. Shove, 113 Wn.2d at 88-89.