Teen Plans Robbery in Washington Two Dead What happened next

Have you ever questioned the fairness of long juvenile sentences in Washington? You’re not alone. Understanding the law is crucial for addressing these concerns. This article explores a significant court decision to help clarify potential solutions.

Situation

Concrete Situation

In Washington, there was a legal case involving a young man named Tonelli Anderson. When he was 17 years old, Anderson and a friend planned a robbery targeting a drug dealer. Unfortunately, this plan went very wrong, leading to two people being killed and another injured. Because of these actions, Anderson was given a 61-year sentence. The case went to the Supreme Court of Washington because there was a question about whether such a long sentence was too harsh for someone who was just a teenager at the time of the crime. The main concern was whether the sentence was like a life sentence without parole, which could be considered cruel punishment according to Washington’s laws.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Tonelli Anderson and his legal team argued that the 61-year sentence was too severe and went against Washington’s constitution. They referred to a recent decision in another case, State v. Haag, which suggested that no teenager should receive a sentence longer than 46 years, no matter how serious the crime. They believed that Anderson was still young and could change, pointing out that teenagers often act impulsively and are not as mature as adults. Therefore, they argued that his age should have been a factor in reducing his sentence.

Defendant’s Argument

The State of Washington, on the other hand, believed that the sentence was fair because Anderson’s crimes were very serious and planned. They argued that the decision in the State v. Haag case didn’t mean that all sentences longer than 46 years were wrong, but that each case should consider the individual’s actions and character. They said that Anderson’s crimes showed a level of maturity and planning that didn’t fit the usual qualities of youth, like impulsiveness, and thus justified the long sentence.

Judgment Outcome

The Washington Supreme Court agreed with the state and upheld Anderson’s 61-year sentence. They decided that his actions didn’t reflect the typical qualities of youth that might reduce a sentence, such as being impulsive or immature. Therefore, they concluded that his sentence was not cruel under the state constitution. This meant that Anderson’s appeal was denied, and he was to continue serving his sentence as decided by the lower court.

Solution

Immediate Actions

If you find yourself or someone you know in a similar situation, it’s crucial to act swiftly. Begin by consulting with a lawyer who specializes in juvenile justice. They can guide you on the best steps to take. It’s important to gather any evidence that shows the juvenile’s potential for rehabilitation. This could include school records, participation in community programs, or any positive changes since the offense.

Filing a Lawsuit

When considering legal action, it’s essential to have a well-prepared case. Start by working with your lawyer to file the necessary documents with the court. Make sure to include all relevant information about the case and any evidence that supports your argument for a reduced sentence. If you believe the current sentence is unfairly harsh, your lawyer can help you argue that the sentence doesn’t consider the mitigating qualities of youth, like immaturity and the potential for change.

Negotiation and Mediation

Before taking the case to court, explore the possibility of negotiating with the prosecution. Sometimes, showing that the juvenile has taken steps towards rehabilitation can lead to a more favorable outcome. Mediation could also be an option, where both parties come together to discuss a possible settlement. This can be less confrontational and might result in a reduced sentence or alternative sentencing options.

Strategic Legal Advice

An experienced lawyer can provide invaluable guidance on how to approach a case like this. They can help you understand the complexities of juvenile law and determine the best legal strategy. It’s important to consider all options, including filing for a sentence review or modification, especially if there is significant evidence of rehabilitation. Your lawyer can help craft a compelling argument that highlights the positive changes and potential for growth in the juvenile offender.

FAQ

What is LWOP? LWOP stands for Life Without Parole, meaning the person will spend their life in prison without the chance to be released.

What is de facto LWOP? De facto LWOP refers to a very long prison sentence that is essentially the same as life without parole, because the person is unlikely to live long enough to be released.

What is RCW 10.95.030? This is a Washington state law that provides guidelines for sentencing people convicted of serious crimes like murder, including life sentences without parole.

What was Anderson’s crime? Anderson was involved in the murder of two people and injuring another during a robbery attempt when he was 17 years old.

What is Article I, Section 14? This section of the Washington Constitution prohibits cruel punishments and offers greater protection than the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What does juvenile mean? A juvenile is someone under the age of 18, often considered less responsible for crimes because they are still developing.

What is a mitigating factor? Mitigating factors are reasons or circumstances that might lessen the severity of a sentence, such as the offender’s young age or potential for rehabilitation.

What is resentencing? Resentencing is the process of reviewing and possibly changing a person’s sentence, often due to new legal standards or additional evidence.

What is a categorical bar? A categorical bar is a rule that prevents certain types of sentences or actions, like prohibiting life sentences without parole for juveniles.

What is judicial discretion? Judicial discretion refers to a judge’s ability to make decisions based on their interpretation of the law and the specific circumstances of a case.