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. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

February 13, 2014

The State of Washington , Respondent ,
v.
Stephen Anthony Bailey , Appellant

Oral Argument September 10, 2013.

Appeal from Yakima Superior Court. Docket No: 07-1-02207-0. Date filed: 08/13/2008. Judge signing: Honorable Michael E Schwab.

Janet G. Gemberling (of Gemberling & Dooris PS ), for appellant.

James P. Hagarty, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kevin G. Eilmes and David B. Trefry, Deputies, for respondent.

AUTHOR: Teresa C. Kulik, J.P.T. George Fearing, J. concurs. Kevin M. Korsmo, C.J. (dissenting).

OPINION

[179 Wn.App. 435]  Kulik, J.[*]

¶ 1 At 16 years of age, Stephen Bailey stipulated to a waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction and pleaded guilty to second degree

Page 943

robbery in adult court. The State later used this conviction as a " strike" under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW. In an unpublished decision, this court concluded that the transfer of Mr. Bailey's case to adult court was proper and, therefore, the robbery conviction could be used as a strike under the POAA. State v. Bailey, noted at 157 Wn.App. 1026, 2010 WL 3034924, review granted, 176 Wn.2d 1001, 291 P.3d 886 (2013). We are now asked to reconsider our decision in light of State v. Saenz, 175 Wn.2d 167, 283 P.3d 1094 (2012), which identified two specific prerequisites for a valid transfer of juvenile court jurisdiction: (1) the juvenile must be fully informed of the rights and protections being waived and (2) the juvenile court must enter written findings in the record, including a finding that transfer is in the best interest of the juvenile or the public.

¶ 2 Adhering to the analysis and holding in Saenz, we conclude that Mr. Bailey was not fully informed of the rights he waived and no written finding was entered that transfer was in the best interest of the juvenile or the public. Accordingly, we reverse the robbery sentence.

[179 Wn.App. 436] FACTS

¶ 3 In 1997, Stephen Bailey, who was 16, was charged by information with first degree robbery. In February 1998, Mr. Bailey entered an Alford [1] plea in adult court and waived a declination hearing in exchange for the State's promise to reduce the charge to second degree robbery. The stipulation regarding transfer to adult court provided:

The defendant and his attorney herein indicate agreement that the prosecution of the Amended Information accusing the defendant of the crime of Second Degree Robbery with a deadly weapon shall be manifested in the adult division of the Yakima County Superior Court. The defendant and his attorney specifically consent to the waiver of any and all rights under RCW 13.40.110 (or any other applicable statute) to a declination hearing.
The court finds that the agreement of the parties is consistent with the interest of justice.

Ex. B.

¶ 4 During the guilty plea hearing, the court explained the declination process as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Do you know what declination is?
THE DEFENDANT: Going to prison.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
THE DEFENDANT: Getting sent to prison.
THE COURT: Well, it means--you're 16 now, is that right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Juvenile court has jurisdiction over you. You are in adult court right now because you were originally charged with a Class A felony, first-degree robbery. The [S]tate is reducing the charge to second-degree robbery.
So, technically, you could go back to juvenile court. But part of the agreement is that you won't go back, and you are going [179 Wn.App. 437] to be treated as an adult here. And you are giving up the right to have a hearing to determine ...

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.