Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bartlett

February 13, 1997

STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT,
v.
RYAN DAVID BARTLETT, APPELLANT.



Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No: 94-1-01531-2. Date filed: 04/20/95. Judge signing: Hon. Robert Austin.

Petition for Review Denied June 3, 1997,

Authored by Dennis J. Sweeney. Concurring: John A. Schultheis, Ray E. Munson.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweeney

SWEENEY, C.J. Ryan David Bartlett entered a plea of guilty to five counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of attempted robbery in the first degree. Based upon his offender score of 16, the standard range sentence for each robbery conviction was 153 to 195 months. The court imposed a sentence of 292.5 months for each of the first degree robbery offenses and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Bartlett appeals the imposition of the exceptional sentence. He contends (1) the court erred in relying on the fact that three deputies transported him to the sentencing hearing; (2) the prosecutor acted vindictively in recommending a harsher sentence after he rejected a plea offer; and (3) the exceptional sentence was not commensurate with the sentence imposed on his codefendant, Danny Clark. We affirm.

IMPOSITION OF EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCE

At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor said "the circumstances . . . show[] what a dangerous person [Mr. Bartlett] is. You just have to look around. There's three deputies here. That's not a normal transport." Defense counsel objected. The court responded, "I have noticed it." The court gave six reasons to support the exceptional sentence:

(1) given Mr. Bartlett's offender score of 16, the multiple offense policy and the imposition of a standard range sentence would result in a sentence that was clearly too lenient;

(2) the interests of Justice;

(3) to accomplish the purposes of the sentencing reform act;

(4) to ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the offenses;

(5) to protect the public;

(6) to provide a deterrence to the commission of this type of offense.

Mr. Bartlett does not challenge the above reasons. RCW 9.94A.210(4)(a). Instead, he reasons that the court relied on the presence of the deputies to support the exceptional sentence because there is "nothing in the record [to] indicate[] that the court did not use this factor (the number of deputies) in imposing the sentence."

Mr. Bartlett is wrong. The court gave six reasons to support the exceptional sentence. Although the court "noticed" that three deputies transported Mr. Bartlett to the sentencing hearing, it did not rely on that fact to support the exceptional sentence. State v. Jones, 130 Wash. 2d 302, 311-12, 922 P.2d 806 (1996) (court did not enter any legal Conclusion about a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.