From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. League

The Supreme Court of Washington
Dec 10, 2009
167 Wn. 2d 671 (Wash. 2009)

Opinion

No. 82991-8.

Considered December 3, 2009.

Decided December 10, 2009.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Mason County, No. 07-1-00415-7, Toni A. Sheldon, J.

Thomas E. Doyle, for petitioner.

Gary P. Burleson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Edward P. Lombardo, Deputy, for respondent.


¶1 Tony League was found guilty of first degree robbery and unlawful imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him for both crimes. On League's appeal the Court of Appeals determined that the two crimes merged under constitutional double jeopardy principles. See U.S. CONST. amend. V; WASH. CONST. art. I, § 9. The court therefore vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing only on the first degree robbery conviction. But the court otherwise affirmed both convictions. League petitioned for this court's review, disputing the remedy the Court of Appeals ordered.

¶2 League correctly argues that the Court of Appeals remedy is incomplete. When two convictions violate double jeopardy principles, the proper remedy is to vacate the lesser conviction and remand for resentencing on the remaining conviction. See State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798, 814, 194 P.3d 212 (2008); State v. Knight, 162 Wn.2d 806, 812, 174 P.3d 1167 (2008).

¶3 Accordingly, the petition for review is granted, the Court of Appeals is reversed in part, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the unlawful imprisonment conviction and resentence League on the first degree robbery conviction.


Summaries of

State v. League

The Supreme Court of Washington
Dec 10, 2009
167 Wn. 2d 671 (Wash. 2009)
Case details for

State v. League

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. TONY L. LEAGUE, Petitioner

Court:The Supreme Court of Washington

Date published: Dec 10, 2009

Citations

167 Wn. 2d 671 (Wash. 2009)
167 Wash. 2d 671
223 P.3d 493

Citing Cases

Van Diest v. Uttecht

Without any authority, Mr. Van Diest argues because the verdict on criminal trespass occurred first, the…

State v. Elder

We accept the State's concession. The matter is therefore remanded to the trial court with directions to…