WA Supreme Court: SRA Trumps No Second Chance Rule in Re-Sentencing Hearing
Here, the defendant got through trial and was in the sentencing proceeding. His counsel had agreed to the offender score and then, for whatever reason, the defendant decided to go it alone without the help of an attorney. The judge then went through a sentencing without holding an evidentiary hearing because both sides had agreed.
The court of appeals held it was error for the judge to sentence based on prior counsel’s agreement. Henri man, the Court of Appeals said that both sides get to present new evidence. It used to be, under the common law, that while the defendant could present new evidence, the state was barred from adding anything new to her sentencing hearing on a re-manned under the “no second chance rule.” However, the Sentencing Reform Act change the rule, and now both sides can present new evidence during the resentencing.
What is funny here, is the court cites as its precedent a case filed the same day:
Cobos argues the state is barred from offering new evidence on remand under the common law “no second chance” rule. Our decision is controlled by State v. Jones, No. 89032-1 (Wash. Nov. 26, 2014), where we held that RCW 9.94A.530(2) supersedes our common law “no second chance” rule.