State v. Manussier
129 Wash.2d 652 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mandatory sentencing law, such as a "three strikes" law imposing life imprisonment without parole for a third serious felony, does not violate various state and federal constitutional provisions, including those related to separation of powers, due process, equal protection, or the prohibition on cruel punishment.
Facts:
- George W. Manussier was convicted of first degree robbery in 1985.
- Manussier was convicted of first degree robbery again in 1989.
- In November 1993, Washington voters approved Initiative 593, the "three strikes law," which required a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for offenders convicted of a third "most serious offense."
- On April 12, 1994, Manussier entered a bank in Fife, Washington.
- Manussier handed a teller a note demanding money and claimed he was armed with a gun and would shoot.
- After the teller complied, Manussier fled on foot to a nearby restaurant.
- Police arrested Manussier at the restaurant with the money taken from the bank in his possession.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney charged George W. Manussier with first degree robbery in Pierce County Superior Court (trial court).
- The State filed a notice of its intent to seek a 'persistent offender' sentence of life without parole under the 'three strikes law.'
- Manussier filed a motion in the trial court to declare the 'three strikes law' unconstitutional on several grounds.
- The trial court denied Manussier's motion.
- Manussier pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of second degree robbery, which still qualified as a 'most serious offense.'
- Following a sentencing hearing where the State proved his two prior robbery convictions, the trial court found Manussier to be a 'persistent offender.'
- The trial court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- Manussier (as appellant) appealed his sentence directly to the Washington Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Washington's "three strikes law," which mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for offenders convicted of a third 'most serious offense,' violate various provisions of the Washington and United States Constitutions, including separation of powers, due process, equal protection, and the prohibitions on bills of attainder and cruel punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. Washington's 'three strikes law' (Initiative 593) is a constitutional exercise of legislative power and does not violate the various state and federal constitutional provisions asserted by the appellant. The court reasoned that: (1) The law is not a bill of attainder because punishment is imposed only after a judicial determination of guilt, not by the legislature itself. (2) It does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, as defining criminal penalties is a legislative function, and prosecutorial discretion in charging is a proper executive function. (3) The classification of 'persistent offenders' survives rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause because it is rationally related to the legitimate state goal of public safety. (4) The sentence of life without parole is not disproportionate and therefore not 'cruel punishment,' given Manussier's history of serious, potentially violent felonies. (5) The procedural due process requirements of the Sentencing Reform Act, which require proof of prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence and do not provide for a jury determination, are constitutionally sufficient for sentencing purposes.
Dissenting - Madsen, J.
Yes. The 'three strikes law,' as applied, violates the Washington State Constitution's due process protections. The majority disregards long-standing state precedent holding that when prior convictions are used to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum for the current offense, those prior convictions must be alleged in an information and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sentencing Reform Act's lower 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is constitutionally insufficient for imposing a sentence as severe as life without parole, which far exceeds the standard range for the underlying crime. This right to a jury trial on sentencing enhancements is rooted in the state constitution and cannot be abrogated by statute.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
Yes. The 'three strikes law' is unconstitutional on its face. The law imposes cruel punishment in violation of article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of recidivist sentencing schemes like "three strikes" laws, granting significant deference to the legislative branch in setting criminal penalties. It marks a significant shift by holding that the streamlined procedural rules of the Sentencing Reform Act, rather than the more stringent, court-developed protections of older habitual criminal statutes, govern persistent offender sentencing. The ruling diminishes the procedural rights of defendants at sentencing, establishing that prior convictions need only be proven to a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, not to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, even when they trigger a mandatory life sentence. This case provides a strong precedent for states to enact and uphold tough-on-crime legislation against a wide array of constitutional challenges.
