Opinion
No. 55021-7-I
Filed: May 23, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 04-1-09517-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 10/01/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Joan B. Allison.
Counsel for Appellant(s), David Bruce Koch, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Pa Wynne — Informational only (Appearing Pro Se), Doc # 962978, Wash. State Penitentiary, 1313 North 13th Ave, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Brian Martin McDonald, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Patrick Wynne pleaded guilty to six counts of first degree robbery and one count of attempting to elude. The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence on each of the robbery counts and the attempting to elude count. It found that the multiple offense policy of RCW 9.94A.589 resulted in a sentence that was `clearly too lenient'. Relying on Blakely v. Washington, U.S., 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), Wynne contends that the exceptional sentence provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act are unconstitutional and that the `clearly too lenient' aggravating factor must be found by a jury.
In State v. Hughes, Wn.2d, P.3d (2005) (2005 WL 851137 (Wash)), the Supreme Court rejected Wynne's first argument but agreed with his second. Under Hughes, a jury must make the determination of whether a sentence is clearly too lenient. Although Wynne waived his right to have a jury find facts sufficient to establish he committed additional uncharged offenses and stipulated to other facts, the State does not contend that this waiver bars the challenge Wynne raises in this appeal.
We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
ELLINGTON and BECKER, JJ., Concur.