Judge explains sentencing guidelines

When we read the newspaper, watch the news, or even in casual conversations with our friends and family, we learn of defendants receiving jail sentences that don't seem to make any sense. We may ask "why would the judge impose a sentence that seems so light for the crime?" or "why was this defendant treated differently than another defendant for the same crime?" It is my hope that this brief, non-comprehensive look at sentencing guidelines may help those who want to better understand our judicial system.

There are a number of considerations that go into setting a jail sentence. These considerations include criminal history, agreed recommendations by the prosecutor and the defense attorney, a request by the victim or law enforcement, the likelihood the defendant will re-offend, or the unique circumstances associated with the crime itself. However, there is no factor that impacts a criminal sentence more than the legislatively mandated sentencing range.

While it is the judge who decides what the sentence will be, it is the legislature that decides the sentencing range.

Many of us have seen the show Law & Order, and watched as Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy offered defendants plea deals of "20 to life." Some states still implement this system of sentencing, where a judge (or parole board) has wide latitude when he or she imposes jail time. Once upon a time, Washington judges also had wide latitude at sentencing. Those days are gone.

In 1981, our state legislature was concerned that judges were imposing disproportionate sentences for the same criminal conduct and similarly situated defendants. In response, the legislature passed the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). Under the SRA, a sentencing range is determined by the crime and the defendant's felony criminal history. The more prior felonies the defendant has, the higher his or her sentencing range will be. While the concept is simple, many people find the sentencing ranges perplexing.

For example, consider an individual who is found guilty of first-degree theft. A person commits this crime if the person unlawfully takes or retains goods or services in excess of $5,000. Imagine that an individual is found guilty at trial by stealing $25,000 and has no prior felony criminal history. In this type of case, the legislature has mandated that the judge must sentence the individual within the range of zero to 90 days.

You did not misread that last sentence. Ninety days is the maximum the court could impose. What if the defendant has felony criminal history? Even if this same defendant was found guilty on three prior occasions of first-degree theft, the sentencing range under the SRA is four to 12 months.

Additionally, with very few exceptions, the SRA does not take into account non-felony criminal history (misdemeanors). This means that someone who is convicted of first-degree theft with no prior criminal history of any kind faces the same sentencing range as someone with multiple prior misdemeanor convictions. There are exceptions to the general SRA rules, such as cases in which an aggravating factor applies, but aggravating factors apply with varying frequency.

I sincerely hope this non-comprehensive look at sentencing has been of some interest to those who are unfamiliar with Washington's sentencing laws. It remains my pleasure to continue to serve as one of your district court judges.

Tyson Hill graduated from Brigham Young University and the University of Washington School of Law. After graduating and passing the bar exam, he served as a law clerk in the Washington State Supreme Court. Since moving to Grant County, Tyson tried felony cases as a deputy prosecutor in superior court until his appointment as a district court judge in 2013.