Automated Summary
Key Facts
Victor Paniagua was convicted in 2007 of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. In 2011, he was convicted again for possession and bail jumping after failing to appear at a hearing related to the 2011 possession charge. In 2018, he was convicted of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, and witness tampering. The trial court calculated an offender score including points for the 2007 and 2011 possession convictions and the 2011 bail jumping. Following the 2021 State v. Blake decision, Paniagua requested resentencing, arguing his possession convictions and the bail jumping should be void. The State agreed to exclude the possession convictions but not the bail jumping, leading to a resentencing to 412 months' confinement.
Issues
The court considers if a bail jumping conviction, based on a prior charge that was later declared unconstitutional (like possession of a controlled substance post-Blake), can be included in the offender score for sentencing purposes.
Holdings
The court affirmed the superior court's inclusion of Victor Paniagua's 2011 conviction for bail jumping in his offender score and affirmed his resentencing, declining to reduce the score based on the unconstitutionality of prior possession charges.
Remedies
- The court affirmed the superior court's decision to include Victor Paniagua's 2011 bail jumping conviction in his offender score, upholding the legal basis for its inclusion despite challenges related to the unconstitutionality of the predicate possession charge.
- The court affirmed the resentencing of Victor Paniagua to 412 months' total confinement, maintaining the sentence after the superior court reduced his offender score by two points (removing the 2007 and 2011 possession of a controlled substance convictions but retaining the 2011 bail jumping conviction).
Legal Principles
- Using the Purposive Approach, the court emphasized the intent behind the bail jumping law: to ensure orderly administration of justice. This justified retaining the conviction in the offender score despite the invalidity of the predicate charge.
- The court applied the Literal Rule in interpreting the bail jumping statute (RCW 9A.76.170), which does not require the validity of the underlying charge for a conviction. The statute's plain language focuses on the failure to appear, not the constitutionality of the charge itself.
- The court addressed Double Jeopardy principles in distinguishing between dismissed charges and valid bail jumping convictions, noting that dismissal of underlying charges does not invalidate the bail jumping offense.
- The court relied on the Substance over Form principle by arguing that the form of the charge (unconstitutional) does not negate the factual basis for the bail jumping conviction, which remains a valid offense under existing law.
Precedent Name
- State v. French
- State v. Downing
- State v. Ammons
- In re Personal Restraint of Ali
- Teague v. Lane
- State v. Blake
Cited Statute
- Bail Jumping Act
- Offender Score Calculation
- Controlled Substances Act
Judge Name
- Judge Fearing
- Judge Staab
- Associate Chief Judge Lawrence-Berrey
Passage Text
- State v. Downing, 122 Wn. App. 185 (2004), controls this appeal... the charge underlying the bail jumping must be valid.
- No decision supports Paniagua's argument, however. To the contrary, RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c) requires this court to include a class C felony conviction in the offender score unless circumstances not found here exist.
- We agree with the State that the accused must submit to confinement until discharged by due process of law. His or her remedy is to seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the statute, not flee from justice.