disposition outside standard in Washington

2017The juvenile court has “broad discretion in determining the appropriate sentence to impose.” State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 657, 660 , 952 P.2d 187 (1998). ¶19 All of the cases cited in Crabtree address the juvenile court’s discretion to determine the length of the disposition it imposes.

2015Again, we disagree. 6 No. 47312-7-II A. RULES OF LAW A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range for a juvenile offender if it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “effectuate a manifest injustice.” RCW 13.40.160(2); State v. Beaver, 148 Wn.2d 338, 345 , 60 P.3d 586 (2002). “‘Manifest injustice’ means a disposition that would either impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or would impose a serious, and clear danger to society in light of the purposes of the [Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, ch. 13.40 RCW].” RCW 13.40.020(19); State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 6

2017The juvenile court has “broad discretion in determining the appropriate sentence to impose.” State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 657, 660 , 952 P.2d 187 (1998). ¶19 All of the cases cited in Crabtree address the juvenile court’s discretion to determine the length of the disposition it imposes.

2015Again, we disagree. 6 No. 47312-7-II A. RULES OF LAW A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range for a juvenile offender if it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “effectuate a manifest injustice.” RCW 13.40.160(2); State v. Beaver, 148 Wn.2d 338, 345 , 60 P.3d 586 (2002). “‘Manifest injustice’ means a disposition that would either impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or would impose a serious, and clear danger to society in light of the purposes of the [Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, ch. 13.40 RCW].” RCW 13.40.020(19); State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 6

2006A disposition within the standard range is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230. [6] RCW 13.40.020(17). [7] State v. Moro, 117 Wash.App. 913, 923 , 73 P.3d 1029 (2003) (RCW 13.40.160(2) "does not require express notice to a defendant that the court is considering imposing a manifest injustice sentence"). [8] "Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the finding's truth." State v. Solomon, 114 Wash. App. 781, 789 , 60 P.3d 1215 (2002). [9] The clear and convincing standard is comparable to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2005RCW 13.40.0357, .160(2); State v. Moro, 117 Wn.

1979Again, in State v. Rhodes, 92 Wn.2d 755 , 600 P.2d 1264 (1979), the Supreme Court in an action under the juvenile code, RCW 13.40.230, considered whether there was evidence which was "clear and convincing" to support a disposition outside the standard range, and equated the standard with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test.

1979Again, in State v. Rhodes, 92 Wn.2d 755 , 600 P.2d 1264 (1979), the Supreme Court in an action under the juvenile code, RCW 13.40.230, considered whether there was evidence which was "clear and convincing" to support a disposition outside the standard range, and equated the standard with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test.

2006MANIFEST INJUSTICE DISPOSITION ¶ 26 Minor next argues that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a manifest injustice disposition; (2) the disposition was excessive; and (3) Blakely prohibits manifest injustice dispositions. 542 U.S. at 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . ¶ 27 A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range when it determines that a disposition within the standard range would "effectuate a manifest injustice." State v. T.E.C., 122 Wash.App. 9, 17 , 92 P.3d 263 (2004) (quoting RCW 13.40.160(2)).

2006App. 9, 17 , 92 P.3d 263 (2004) (quoting RCW 13.40.160(2)).

2006MANIFEST INJUSTICE DISPOSITION ¶ 26 Minor next argues that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a manifest injustice disposition; (2) the disposition was excessive; and (3) Blakely prohibits manifest injustice dispositions. 542 U.S. at 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . ¶ 27 A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range when it determines that a disposition within the standard range would "effectuate a manifest injustice." State v. T.E.C., 122 Wash.App. 9, 17 , 92 P.3d 263 (2004) (quoting RCW 13.40.160(2)).

2006Manifest Injustice Disposition |26 Minor next argues that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a manifest injustice disposition, (2) the disposition was excessive, and (3) Blakely prohibits manifest injustice dispositions. 542 U.S. 296 . ¶27 A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range when it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “ ‘effectuate a manifest injustice.’ ” State v. T.E.C., 122 Wn.

2006A disposition within the standard range is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230. [6] RCW 13.40.020(17). [7] State v. Moro, 117 Wash.App. 913, 923 , 73 P.3d 1029 (2003) (RCW 13.40.160(2) "does not require express notice to a defendant that the court is considering imposing a manifest injustice sentence"). [8] "Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the finding's truth." State v. Solomon, 114 Wash. App. 781, 789 , 60 P.3d 1215 (2002). [9] The clear and convincing standard is comparable to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2005RCW 13.40.0357, .160(2); State v. Moro, 117 Wash. App. 913, 918 , 73 P.3d 1029 (2003).

2006Id. ¶ 29 Chapter 13.40 RCW does not provide the court with the authority to order DSHS to place an adjudicated offender in foster care.

2006Id. f 29 Chapter 13.40 RCW does not provide the court with the authority to order DSHS to place an adjudicated offender in foster care.

2006MANIFEST INJUSTICE DISPOSITION ¶ 26 Minor next argues that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a manifest injustice disposition; (2) the disposition was excessive; and (3) Blakely prohibits manifest injustice dispositions. 542 U.S. at 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . ¶ 27 A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range when it determines that a disposition within the standard range would "effectuate a manifest injustice." State v. T.E.C., 122 Wash.App. 9, 17 , 92 P.3d 263 (2004) (quoting RCW 13.40.160(2)).

2006Manifest Injustice Disposition |26 Minor next argues that (1) the record does not support the imposition of a manifest injustice disposition, (2) the disposition was excessive, and (3) Blakely prohibits manifest injustice dispositions. 542 U.S. 296 . ¶27 A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range when it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “ ‘effectuate a manifest injustice.’ ” State v. T.E.C., 122 Wn.

2003App. 601, 605-06 , 694 P.2d 692 (1985), the court held that there was no due process violation where the State orally informed the defendant of its intent to seek a manifest injustice, the probation counselor recommended a disposition outside the standard range, and the court granted defense counsel two continuances in order to give him additional time to prepare a response to the presentence report.

2003In State v. Beard, 39 Wash.App. 601, 606 , 694 P.2d 692 (1985), the court held that there was no due process violation where the State orally informed the defendant of its intent to seek a manifest injustice, the probation counselor recommended a disposition outside the standard range, and the court granted defense counsel two continuances in order to give him additional time to prepare a response to the presentence report.

2003In Falling, 50 Wn.

2003In Falling, 50 Wash.App. at 51-52 , 747 P.2d 1119 , Mr. Falling cited Gutierrez , and argued that the notice requirement of the Juvenile Justice Act for finding a manifest injustice should apply to the finding of an exceptional sentence under the adult Sentencing Reform Act of 1981(SRA).

2000State v. Gutierrez, 37 Wn.

2000State v. Gutierrez, 37 Wash.App. 910, 913 , 684 P.2d 87 (1984).

1994In State v. E.J.H., 65 Wn.

1994In State v. E.J.H., 65 Wn.

2021App. 84, 87 , 9 P.3d 835 (2000). 7 Ch. 9.94A RCW. 6 No. 53841-5-II A juvenile court may impose a disposition outside the standard range if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a disposition within the standard range would effectuate a manifest injustice.

2019Indeed, a "disposition outside the standard range is appealable under RCW 13.40.230 by the state or the respondent." Id. (emphasis added).

2017App. 733, 741 , 113 P.3d 19 (2005).

2017ANALYSIS Mr. Shurtz argues that the trial court imposed a manifest injustice disposition that was clearly excessive and based on factors already considered in the recommended standard range disposition. 4 No. 34654-4-111 State v. Shurtz Under RCW 13.40.160(2), if a juvenile "court concludes ... that disposition within the standard range would effectuate a manifest injustice the court shall impose a disposition outside the standard range." See State v. Duncan, 90 Wn.

2017A juvenile court may impose a disposition outside the standard range only if it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “effectuate a manifest injustice.” RCW 13.40.160(2); State v. Tai N., 127 Wn.

2016RCW 13.40.020(19). " These purposes include protection of the citizenry and provision of necessary treatment, No. 73652-3-1/4 supervision!,] and custody for juvenile offenders.' " State v. K.E.. 97 Wn.

2015Again, we disagree. 6 No. 47312-7-II A. RULES OF LAW A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range for a juvenile offender if it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “effectuate a manifest injustice.” RCW 13.40.160(2); State v. Beaver, 148 Wn.2d 338, 345 , 60 P.3d 586 (2002). “‘Manifest injustice’ means a disposition that would either impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or would impose a serious, and clear danger to society in light of the purposes of the [Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, ch. 13.40 RCW].” RCW 13.40.020(19); State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 6

2015Again, we disagree. 6 No. 47312-7-II A. RULES OF LAW A court may impose a disposition outside the standard range for a juvenile offender if it determines that a disposition within the standard range would “effectuate a manifest injustice.” RCW 13.40.160(2); State v. Beaver, 148 Wn.2d 338, 345 , 60 P.3d 586 (2002). “‘Manifest injustice’ means a disposition that would either impose an excessive penalty on the juvenile or would impose a serious, and clear danger to society in light of the purposes of the [Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, ch. 13.40 RCW].” RCW 13.40.020(19); State v. M.L., 134 Wn.2d 6

2006A disposition within the standard range is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230. [6] RCW 13.40.020(17). [7] State v. Moro, 117 Wash.App. 913, 923 , 73 P.3d 1029 (2003) (RCW 13.40.160(2) "does not require express notice to a defendant that the court is considering imposing a manifest injustice sentence"). [8] "Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the finding's truth." State v. Solomon, 114 Wash. App. 781, 789 , 60 P.3d 1215 (2002). [9] The clear and convincing standard is comparable to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2006A disposition within the standard range is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230. [6] RCW 13.40.020(17). [7] State v. Moro, 117 Wash.App. 913, 923 , 73 P.3d 1029 (2003) (RCW 13.40.160(2) "does not require express notice to a defendant that the court is considering imposing a manifest injustice sentence"). [8] "Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the finding's truth." State v. Solomon, 114 Wash. App. 781, 789 , 60 P.3d 1215 (2002). [9] The clear and convincing standard is comparable to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

2002NOTES [1] Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3. [2] Id. [3] See RCW 13.40.0357 (Option A). [4] If a court finds that a standard disposition would "effectuate a manifest injustice, the court shall impose a disposition outside the standard range under RCW 13.40.160(2)." RCW 13.40.0357 (Option C).

1991App. 571, 577 , 726 P.2d 60 (1986). 8 RCW 13.40.230(2) states: "To uphold a disposition outside the standard range . . . the court of appeals must find (a) that the reasons supplied by the disposition judge are supported by the record which was before the judge and that those reasons clearly and convincingly support the conclusion that a disposition within the range . . . would constitute a manifest injustice, and (b) that the sentence imposed was neither clearly excessive nor clearly too lenient." 9 58 Wn.

1991App. 571, 577 , 726 P.2d 60 (1986). 8 RCW 13.40.230(2) states: "To uphold a disposition outside the standard range . . . the court of appeals must find (a) that the reasons supplied by the disposition judge are supported by the record which was before the judge and that those reasons clearly and convincingly support the conclusion that a disposition within the range . . . would constitute a manifest injustice, and (b) that the sentence imposed was neither clearly excessive nor clearly too lenient." 9 58 Wn.

1991App. 215, 219 , 795 P.2d 134 , 805 P.2d 247 (1990). 10 State v. Strauss, 54 Wn.

1991App. 215, 219 , 795 P.2d 134 , 805 P.2d 247 (1990). 10 State v. Strauss, 54 Wn.