Spokane high school sex offender’s sentence upheld

OLYMPIA – A teen sex offender who assaulted three classmates in Spokane high schools was properly sentenced to 36 weeks in jail, suspended as long as he obeyed the requirements of a special alternative agreement, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled Spokane County Superior Court Judge Annette Plese used the proper standard for the sentence, which was outside the state guidelines, based on “clear and convincing” evidence from the trial that he threatened his victims with serious harm and had a high risk to reoffend.

But Plese also gave him a chance to remain out of jail if he kept his record clean and participated in counseling. When the teen violated the terms of that agreement, he went to jail.

The case involved a high school student who attended Rogers and later Shadle Park high schools. In 2016, he embraced, groped and kissed three different classmates, and when the girls attempted to leave, held them against their will. Because everyone involved was a juvenile, the assailant’s name wasn’t released and the court refers to him by his initials.

Convicted of two counts of unlawful imprisonment with sexual motivation and one count of fourth-degree assault without sexual motivation, the teen asked to be sentenced to no more than 30 days in jail and 12 months probation with sex offender counseling, which was the standard range because he had no prior criminal history. Prosecutors asked for a stronger sentence – known as a manifest injustice disposition – of 36 weeks in jail that would be suspended under a special sex offender alternative.

Plese agreed with prosecutors. While he remained out of jail under the alternative suspension, the teen appealed his harsh sentence. The Court of Appeals ruled he couldn’t appeal the sentence while it was suspended, but between the time he filed his challenge and the appeals court ruled, he violated the terms of the agreement and went to jail. He served his full sentence before the Supreme Court could hear the appeal.

Normally, that would make the appeal of the sentence moot because it couldn’t be changed, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen. But legal questions remain about whether the more severe sentence could have been appealed even when it is under suspension, and whether the standard for setting the term is clear and convincing evidence, as Plese said, or beyond a reasonable doubt, as the teen contended in the appeal.

The Supreme Court majority said the stronger sentence can be appealed even when it is suspended under an agreement, and the teen didn’t have to wait. It also said that juvenile hearings are essentially civil proceedings, and while guilt or innocence is determined beyond a reasonable doubt, sentencing is akin to civil commitment and can be decided on the slightly lower standard of clear and convincing evidence.

Two justices argued the case was moot and the court should have left it alone. A case could have been made that an extraordinary sentence for a juvenile needs to be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote. But the teen’s attorneys didn’t cite the cases needed to bolster such an argument.

In some future appeal, the Supreme Court may be asked to apply those cases to a juvenile sentencing and the case “will be misleading and not useful,” he wrote.