WA Legal Roundup: Division III
State v. Robinson Chucco Robinson entered guilty pleas to first degree burglary and third degree rape, but then sought to withdraw the pleas after the court discovered his juvenile criminal history that increased his offender score. Robinson had not disclosed this portion of his criminal history to the trial court. The trial court allowed Robinson to withdraw his guilty plea and the State appealed. Robinson argued that his juvenile history was a wash-out and didn’t affect his offender score in his 1994 second degree murder conviction and thus he did not know it would affect his offender score on his current guilty plea. The wash-out rules changed and since 2002 juvenile offenses no longer wash-out. (Geesh! He probably wouldn’t have committed new crimes if he knew the wash-out rules didn’t apply).
A defendant’s guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. To be knowing, the defendant must be informed of all the consequences of his plea. Was Robinson’s guilty plea entered knowingly if he didn’t realize that his juvenile criminal history would increase his offender score? According to Division III, it was. A withdrawal of a guilty plea is allowed if there is a manifest injustice. Division III found that a defendant assumes the risk that new or additional criminal history will be discovered. Guilty plea forms cover the bases pretty good and they include language that the plea is made “freely and voluntarily” and the defendant agrees to “the use of additional criminal history if later ascertained.” The Court held that since Robinson failed to disclose his juvenile history he can’t later cry foul because the undisclosed history increased his offender score. This is not a manifest injustice.