NCJ Number
115561
Journal
Gonzaga Law Review Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Dated: (1987/1988) Pages: 655-670
Date Published
1988
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article discusses appellate review and judicial abuse of discretion under the State of Washington's Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 and points out that a trial court judge may impose an exceptional sentence that exceeds or falls below the statutory presumptive range if he or she finds 'substantial and compelling reasons' distinguishing the case at bar from a typical felony case.
Abstract
When an appellate court reviews the imposition of the exceptional sentence, it applies a two-part abuse of discretion test. First, it asks if the trial judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously in imposing the exceptional sentence. Second, the reviewing court asks if the trial court's rationale for imposing the exceptional sentence is so tenuous that no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion. An affirmative answer to either question means that the trial court abused its discretion. Critics of this abuse of discretion standard argue that the Washington legislature intended to provide strict control over sentencing and the court's discretionary powers by providing for a review of exceptional sentences that does not rubber stamp trial court sentencing decisions. Advocates of the abuse of discretion standard argue that judges should be permitted to tailor sentences to the facts of particular cases, such as in the Minnesota courts. The Minnesota doubling rule limits the trial court's discretion in imposing exceptional sentences to twice the presumptive range. 89 footnotes