In the case of State v. Drake (No. 84923-9-I), the Washington Court of Appeals addressed a key issue related to resentencing and offender scores following the landmark State v. Blake decision. Darris Eugene Drake Jr. sought resentencing after a previous conviction was invalidated by Blake, but the Court of Appeals upheld the denial of his motion. This case highlights the complexities of offender scores, firearm enhancements, and the impact of Blake on Washington State’s legal system.

Facts of the Case

In 2010, Darris Drake was convicted of assault in the first degree and residential burglary while armed with a firearm. At the time of sentencing, his offender score for Count I was calculated as five, resulting in a standard range of 138-184 months under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act (SRA). For Count II, his score was four, with a standard range of 15-20 months, plus an additional 72 months for a firearm enhancement. Drake was sentenced to a total of 210 months, based on these offender scores and the standard sentencing guidelines.

Following the Washington Supreme Court’s 2021 Blake decision, which invalidated the state’s strict liability drug possession statute, Drake filed a CrR 7.8 motion for resentencing. He argued that his offender score, which had included a 2007 drug possession conviction, should be recalculated. However, the state contended that even if the Blakeconviction was removed, Drake’s offender score would remain the same due to a subsequent 2011 theft conviction.

Offender Scores and Resentencing

In Washington, offender scores play a critical role in determining sentencing ranges. The offender score is calculated by considering prior convictions and other factors to assign a score that directly impacts the standard range for sentencing. In Drake’s case, even though his offender score initially included a now-invalid Blake conviction, the addition of a 2011 theft conviction maintained the same score. As a result, the trial court denied his motion for resentencing, and Drake appealed the decision.

The key legal question in this case revolved around whether Drake’s offender score could be adjusted due to the Blakeruling. Under Washington law, a CrR 7.8 motion for resentencing is considered a collateral attack on a previous judgment. To succeed in such a motion, the defendant must show that the original sentencing was based on a fundamental error or that a complete miscarriage of justice occurred.

The Blake Decision’s Impact on Offender Scores

The State v. Blake ruling had a significant impact on Washington’s criminal justice system, as it invalidated thousands of prior drug possession convictions. For defendants like Drake, the Blake decision opened the door to potential resentencing if their offender scores were based on now-invalidated convictions. However, in this case, the inclusion of a subsequent theft conviction meant that removing the Blake conviction did not alter Drake’s overall offender score.

The Washington Court of Appeals acknowledged that while the Blake decision was a material change in the law, it did not entitle Drake to resentencing because his offender score remained unchanged. Additionally, the court noted that Drake had already received a sentence at the low end of the standard range, which further supported the trial court’s decision to deny resentencing.

Firearm Enhancement and Sentencing Reform Act

Drake’s sentence also included a 72-month firearm enhancement under RCW 9.94A.533. Washington law mandates that firearm enhancements are served consecutively to the base sentence and cannot be reduced. Despite Drake’s argument that his sentence was excessive, the Court of Appeals found no grounds for reducing the firearm enhancement, as it complied with state law.

The court’s decision also reaffirmed that under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), subsequent convictions, such as Drake’s 2011 theft conviction, must be included in offender score calculations during resentencing. This ensures the accuracy of sentences and upholds the principles of Washington’s sentencing framework.

Collateral Attack and Complete Miscarriage of Justice

A key aspect of this case was whether Drake’s sentencing amounted to a complete miscarriage of justice. Under Washington law, defendants seeking relief from a nonconstitutional error, such as a miscalculated offender score, must demonstrate that the error led to a complete miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeals concluded that Drake failed to meet this burden, as his offender score remained the same and his sentence fell within the appropriate standard range.

Conclusion

In State v. Drake, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Darris Drake’s motion for resentencing. Although the Blake decision invalidated one of Drake’s prior convictions, his offender score remained unchanged due to a subsequent theft conviction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing that Washington’s sentencing framework, including the Sentencing Reform Act and firearm enhancement laws, requires accuracy in offender score calculations. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in post-Blake resentencing motions and the importance of a defendant’s entire criminal history in determining sentencing outcomes.

For more information on State v. Drake, you can read the full decision here: Washington Court of Appeals Decision.

Review our client resources here

Contact us anytime for your urgent legal needs.

About Blanford Law:

We are no-nonsense, relentless, fair, and honest. We are great listeners instead of fast talkers, that is just who we are. More than 20 years ago, Ken began practicing law with a deeply-seeded belief that every person has the right to the best legal representation available. He built his law firm on that belief. Another belief that he strongly adheres to is his fundamental belief that clients deserve respect, with no assumptions or preconceived notions.  If you or someone you know is accused of a crime or injured as a result of the negligence of another, please have them call us at 253-720-9304 or email us info@blanfordlaw.com