|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
65366-1 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Matthew Dwayne Williams, Appellant |
| File Date: |
06/04/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from King County Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 03-1-01036-3 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 03/29/2010 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Gregory P Canova |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Anne Ellington |
| Concurring: | C. Kenneth Grosse |
| Linda Lau |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Washington Appellate Project |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | 1511 Third Avenue |
| | Suite 701 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98101 |
|
| | Elaine L Winters |
| | Washington Appellate Project |
| | 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98101-3635 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Prosecuting Atty King County |
| | King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor |
| | W554 King County Courthouse |
| | 516 Third Avenue |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104 |
|
| | Deborah A. Dwyer |
| | King Co Pros Ofc/Appellate Unit |
| | 516 3rd Ave Ste W554 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98104-2362 |
Counsel for Other Parties |
| | Victoria Raccagno (Appearing Pro Se) |
| | King County Court Reporter |
| | King County Superior Court - Krjc |
| | 401 - 4th Ave N. RM 2D |
| | Kent, WA, 98032 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 65366-1-I
)
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
MATTHEW DWAYNE WILLIAMS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
) FILED: June 4, 2012
Appellant. )
)
Ellington, J. -- Matthew Williams appeals his standard range sentence for
three counts of first degree robbery, each with a firearm enhancement. He claims
the sentence was vindictive because it was proportionately higher than his original
sentence, which was vacated pursuant to his successful personal restraint petition.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, Williams pled guilty to three counts of first degree robbery, each with
a firearm enhancement. Based on an offender score of 9, the court determined
Williams' standard range for each robbery was 129 to 171 months, plus consecutive
60-month terms (180 total months) for each of the three firearm enhancements. The
court imposed a sentence at the low end of the range of 129 months for each count,
No. 65366-1-I/2
to run concurrently, plus the enhancements, for a total of 309 months.
Williams successfully challenged the determination of his criminal history and
offender score under a personal restraint petition, and the court vacated his original
sentence.
Based on his new offender score of 7, Williams' standard range was 87 to 116
months for each count, plus the three 60-month enhancements. At the resentencing
hearing, the court imposed a midrange sentence, explaining "the low end of the
sentencing range is [not] an accurate reflection of the crimes of which Mr. Williams
was convicted."1 The court ordered 100 months for each robbery count, for a total of
280 months.
DISCUSSION
Williams claims the court imposed a vindictive sentence in violation of his
right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
An appellate court may refuse to review a claim of error raised for the first
time on appeal.2 But it may make an exception for a "manifest error affecting a
constitutional right."3 To show an error was "manifest," a defendant must show the
alleged error resulted in actual prejudice -- that there were practical and identifiable
consequences in the proceedings below.4
Williams fails to show his due process claim, raised for the first time on
1 Report of Proceedings (Mar. 26, 2010) at 6.
2 RAP 2.5(a).
3 RAP 2.5(a)(3).
4 State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98, 217 P.3d 756 (2009).
2
No. 65366-1-I/3
appeal, is a manifest error. His revised sentence is lower than his original, vacated
sentence,
3
No. 65366-1-I/4
so there was no prejudice. We thus decline to address his argument.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
4
|