Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

A recent Washington Court of Appeals decision, State v. Stapleton (Div. II, No. 59375-1-II, Feb. 18, 2026) (unpublished), reinforces an important constitutional principle: trial courts must conduct an individualized inquiry before requiring a defendant to appear in restraints at sentencing.

The case addresses a recurring but often overlooked issue — whether a defendant may be confined in an in-court holding cell or otherwise restrained during a sentencing hearing without specific findings on the record.

The answer is no.

The Constitutional Rule: Defendants Are Entitled to Appear Free of Restraints

Washington courts have long held that criminal defendants have the right to appear in court free from shackles or restraints unless extraordinary circumstances justify them. This right arises from:

  • The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
  • Article I, Section 3 of the Washington Constitution
  • The inherent dignity of judicial proceedings

Although this principle is most frequently discussed in the context of jury trials, it applies equally to all critical stages of the proceeding, including sentencing.

Sentencing is not a ministerial act. It is a discretionary judicial function where:

  • The court evaluates mitigation
  • The defendant may seek alternatives (e.g., DOSA, mental health sentencing alternative)
  • The court exercises judgment within the standard range

Because the sentencing judge is making discretionary determinations, visible restraints risk influencing that judgment.

The Problem in Stapleton: No Individualized Inquiry

In Stapleton, the defendant appeared at sentencing confined in an in-court holding cell. The trial court did not:

  • Conduct an individualized inquiry
  • Make findings regarding security risk
  • Consider less restrictive alternatives
  • Place justification for the restraint on the record

That omission was constitutionally significant.

Washington law requires a case-specific analysis before imposing courtroom restraints. Courts may not rely on blanket policies, generalized security concerns, or routine practice.

The inquiry must consider factors such as:

  • The defendant’s behavior history
  • Prior escape attempts
  • Disruptive conduct
  • Specific courtroom security concerns
  • Available less restrictive options

Without this record, appellate courts cannot determine whether the restraint was justified.

Why Sentencing Is Particularly Sensitive

Restraints at trial raise concerns about the presumption of innocence. At sentencing, the issue shifts slightly but remains serious.

The concerns include:

  1. Judicial Bias Risk – Visible restraints may implicitly signal dangerousness.
  2. Impact on Mitigation – A restrained defendant may appear less credible or less sympathetic.
  3. Interference with Counsel – Physical barriers can impair confidential communication.
  4. Dignity of Proceedings – Sentencing is a formal adjudication of liberty interests.

In Stapleton, the defendant received a high-end standard range sentence after appearing restrained. That fact amplified the appellate court’s concern.

Raising the Issue for the First Time on Appeal

The defendant did not object at sentencing.

Ordinarily, failure to object waives error. However, Washington’s RAP 2.5(a)(3) permits review of a manifest error affecting a constitutional right raised for the first time on appeal.

Restraint without an individualized inquiry qualifies as constitutional error. The appellate court then analyzes whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden shifts to the State.

In Stapleton, the State could not demonstrate that the error was harmless. The case was remanded for resentencing.

  1. Always object to restraints at sentencing.
  2. Demand an individualized inquiry on the record.
  3. Request findings addressing less restrictive alternatives.
  4. Preserve the issue explicitly for appeal.

Even in non-jury proceedings, the failure to conduct the required inquiry is reversible constitutional error.

Citing Unpublished Opinions in Washington

Because Stapleton is unpublished, it raises a separate procedural issue: how and whether it may be cited.

GR 14.1 and RCW 2.06.040

Under General Rule (GR) 14.1:

  • Unpublished Court of Appeals opinions filed on or after March 1, 2013 may be cited as nonbinding authority.
  • They have no precedential value.
  • They may be cited for persuasive purposes only.

RCW 2.06.040 governs publication decisions and clarifies that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent.

Practical Use of Unpublished Opinions

Unpublished opinions may be useful when:

  • Addressing recurring procedural errors
  • Demonstrating how appellate courts apply established law
  • Showing trends in judicial reasoning

However:

  • They should never be cited as controlling authority.
  • They must be identified as unpublished.
  • Stronger published authority should anchor the argument whenever possible.

In the context of courtroom restraints, published Washington Supreme Court precedent remains the controlling authority. An unpublished case like Stapleton reinforces application, not doctrine.

Conclusion

Washington law is clear: courtroom restraints at sentencing require an individualized, on-the-record inquiry.Routine or unexplained use of shackles, holding cells, or other restraints violates due process.

When trial courts fail to make findings justifying restraints, the error is constitutional in nature and may require resentencing.

At the same time, practitioners should remember that unpublished decisions like State v. Stapleton may be cited only as persuasive authority under GR 14.1.

Blanford Law Informational Section

If you or a family member is facing criminal charges in Washington, sentencing is a critical stage of the case. Constitutional violations — including improper courtroom restraints — can affect the outcome and may provide grounds for appeal or resentencing.

Blanford Law focuses on protecting the procedural and constitutional rights of defendants at every stage of the criminal process, including sentencing hearings and post-conviction review.

For more information about your rights or appellate options, contact Blanford Law.

Additional Resources