State v. Witherspoon ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Fl LE
    IN CLERKS OFFICE
    IUPR!ME couRT,, STATE   1w- .
    ..-:``~nfrl'llll,
    DATE        J.Ul .. 7 ....           !
    .11Ja d_.W£!1<~·                             I
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,.
    Respondent,                             No. 88118-9
    v.                                                     En Bane
    .~UL 1 7    2014
    .. ·
    ::~   ~   .:
    ALVIN LESLIE WITHERSPOON,                                 Filed - - - - -
    Petitioner.
    J.M. JOHNSON, J. *-Petitioner Alvin Witherspoon · challenges                        his
    conviction and life sentence for second degree robbery. 1 Because the robbery
    conviction was his third "most serious offense," he was sentenced to life in prison
    *Justice James M. Johnson is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to
    Washington Constitution article IV, section 2(a).
    1
    The Court of Appeals erred by stating that the challenged conviction was for second degree
    robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. See State v. Witherspoon, 
    171 Wash. App. 271
    , 280,
    
    286 P.3d 996
    (2012). The trial court never made· a finding that Witherspoon was armed with a
    deadly weapon. See Clerk's Papers at 5. The presentence investigation report also contains this
    error. See Reporter's Tr. on Appeal (Sentencing) at 2 (identifying this inaccuracy and noting that
    the trial court did not rely on it for sentencing purposes).
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    without the possibility of release under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act
    (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW; RCW
    9.94A.570. We affirm the Court of Appeals, upholding Witherspoon's conviction
    and sentence.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On November 12, 2009, Witherspoon and his fiancee drove to the victim's
    home. Witherspoon does not dispute that he then broke into the victim's home and
    stole several items. While the burglary was in progress, the victim returned home
    and noticed an unknown car parked in her driveway. The victim exited her car and
    saw Witherspoon walking from around the side of her home. He was holding his
    left hand behind his back. The victim testified at trial that she asked Witherspoon
    what he had behind his back, and he said he had a pistol. He then got in his car and
    drove away. The victim noticed some of her belongings in the back of his car,
    followed him in her own car, and called 911 as he fled the scene. Police arrested
    Witherspoon and his fiancee, obtained a search warrant, and found multiple items
    belonging to the victim in their home. From jail, Witherspoon called his fiancee,
    attempting to convince her to stop talking to the police and lie about the crime. The
    phone conversation was recorded by the jail.
    2
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    A jury found Witherspoon guilty of first degree burglary and second degree
    robbery based on the events of November 12,2009. See RCW 9A.52.025(1); RCW
    9A.56.190, .210(1). The jury also found him guilty of witness tampering based on
    the jailhouse phone conversation he made to his fiancee after his arrest. See RCW
    9A.72.120(1 ). At sentencing, the court determined that the certified conviction
    documents met the State's burden to prove two prior strike convictions. The court
    found that Witherspoon is a persistent offender and sentenced him to life in prison
    without the possibility of early release.
    On appeal, he challenged his convictions and sentence on a number of
    grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. State v.
    Witherspoon, 
    171 Wash. App. 271
    , 
    286 P.3d 996
    (2012).           Witherspoon sought
    discretionary review in this court, which was granted on only four issues. State v.
    Witherspoon, 
    177 Wash. 2d 1007
    , 
    300 P.3d 416
    (2013).
    ISSUES
    1.    Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Witherspoon's second
    degree robbery conviction.
    2.    Whether Witherspoon's counsel was ineffective in not asking for an
    instruction on first degree theft as a lesser included offense.
    3.    Whether Witherspoon's persistent offender sentence constitutes cruel
    or cruel and unusual punishment.
    3
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    4.     Whether Witherspoon's previous strike offenses should have been
    proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
    ANALYSIS
    1.     There Was Sufficient Evidence To Support Witherspoon's Second Degree
    Robbery Conviction
    Witherspoon claims that insufficient evidence exists to prove all elements of
    second degree robbery, as instructed to the jury. "The test for determining the
    sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt." State v. Salinas, 
    119 Wash. 2d 192
    , 201, 
    829 P.2d 1068
    (1992)
    (citing State v. Green, 
    94 Wash. 2d 216
    , 220-22, 
    616 P.2d 628
    (1980)). Witherspoon
    must accordingly admit the truth of the State's evidence and all reasonable
    inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. 
    Id. We must
    also defer to the fact
    finder on issues of witness credibility. State v. Drum, 
    168 Wash. 2d 23
    , 35, 
    225 P.3d 237
    (2010) (citing State v. Camarillo, 
    115 Wash. 2d 60
    , 71, 
    794 P.2d 850
    (1990)). In
    this case, a rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Consequently, sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.
    Pursuant to RCW 9A.56.190:
    A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes
    personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence
    against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force,
    violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the
    4
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain
    or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome
    resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is
    immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that,
    although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the
    person from whom taken, such lmowledge was prevented by the use of
    force or fear. [ZJ
    (Emphasis added.) The jury instruction in this case included the statutory language
    above, but omitted the word "such" from the phrase "such force or fear must be used
    to obtain or retain possession of the property." It therefore read, in part, "That force
    or fear was used by the Defendant to obtain or retain possession of the property or
    to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking or to prevent lmowledge of the
    taking." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 55 (Instruction 11 ).
    Witherspoon asserts that under the law of the case doctrine, the jury
    instruction required the State to prove actual force or fear. This doctrine provides
    that a jury instruction not objected to becomes the law of the case. State v. Willis,
    
    153 Wash. 2d 366
    , 374, 
    103 P.3d 1213
    (2005) (citing State v. Hickman, 
    135 Wash. 2d 97
    ,
    102, 
    954 P.2d 900
    (1998)). "In a criminal case, the State assumes the burden of
    proving otherwise unnecessary elements of the offense when such elements are
    included without objection in a jury instruction." 
    Id. at 374-75
    (citing Hickman, 135
    2
    In 2011, the legislature amended this statute to be gender neutral. This amendment did not affect
    the substance ofthe statute.
    5
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    Wn.2d at 102). Contrary to Witherspoon's assertion, the exclusion of the word
    "such" does not change the plain meaning of the instruction in a way that requires
    the State to prove actual force or fear.
    Witherspoon claims that he made, at most, an implied threat that instilled no
    fear. He further claims that even if there had been force or fear, it did not help
    accomplish the robbery because the victim did not know that Witherspoon had taken
    any of her property until he drove away. He contends that her ignorance did not
    stem from force, fear, or threats. Because we determine intimidation based on an
    objective test, Witherspoon's argument does not stand.
    "Robbery encompasses any 'taking of ... property [that is] attended with such
    circumstances of terror, or such threatening by menace, word or gesture as in
    common experience is likely to create an apprehension of danger and induce a man
    to part with property for the safety of his person."' State v. Shcherenkov, 146 Wn.
    App. 619, 624-25, 
    191 P.3d 99
    (2008) (alterations in original) (quoting State v.
    Redmond, 
    122 Wash. 392
    , 393, 
    210 P. 772
    (1922)). To determine whether the
    defendant used intimidation, we use an objective test. We consider whether an
    ordinary person in the victim's position could reasonably infer a threat of bodily
    harm from the defendant's acts. Jd. at 625 (quoting 67 AM.    JUR.   2D Robbery§ 89,
    at 114 (2003)).
    6
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could
    have found that Witherspoon used force or the threatened use of force in this case.
    The victim testified at trial that she noticed an unknown car in her driveway when
    she arrived home. As she exited her car, she saw Witherspoon come around the side
    of her home with one hand behind his back. She testified that she asked him what
    he had behind his back, and he said he had a pistol. A rational jury could have found
    that this was an implied threat that he would use force if necessary to retain her
    property. The evidence is sufficient to prove the elements of second degree robbery
    beyond a reasonable doubt. We accordingly affirm the Court of Appeals, which
    upheld Witherspoon's robbery conviction.
    2.     Witherspoon Does Not Prove That Counsel Was Ineffective in Not Asking for
    an Instruction on First Degree Theft as a Lesser Included Offense
    Witherspoon argues ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel
    did not request an instruction on theft as a lesser included offense.        Counsel's
    performance, however, did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.
    In order for a petitioner to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, he must
    overcome the presumption that his counsel was effective. State v. Thiefault, 
    160 Wash. 2d 409
    , 414, 
    158 P.3d 580
    (2007). "[C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have
    rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of
    reasonable professional judgment." Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 690,
    7
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
    (1984).          To overcome this presumption,
    Witherspoon must demonstrate that "(1) 'counsel's representation fell below an
    objective standard of reasonableness' and (2) 'the deficient performance prejudiced
    the defense."' In re Pers. Restraint of Yates, 
    177 Wash. 2d 1
    , 35,296 P.3d 872 (2013)
    (quoting 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88
    ). However, "if a personal restraint petitioner
    makes a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he has necessarily met
    his burden to show actual and substantial prejudice." In re Pers. Restraint of Crace,
    
    174 Wash. 2d 835
    , 846-47,280 P.3d 1102 (2012). Accordingly, to prevail on his claim,
    Witherspoon must prove that trial counsel's "acts or omissions were outside the wide
    range of professionally competent assistance." 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690
    .
    Under RCW 10.61.006, both the defendant and the State have the right to
    present a lesser included offense to the jury. State v. Stevens, 
    158 Wash. 2d 304
    , 310,
    
    143 P.3d 817
    (2006). To prove the lesser included offense, the party requesting the
    instruction must meet a two-pronged test: (1) "under the legal prong, all of the
    elements of the lesser offense must be a necessary element of the charged offense"
    and (2) "under the factual prong, the evidence must support an inference that the
    lesser crime was committed." !d. (citing State v. Gamble, 
    154 Wash. 2d 457
    , 462-63,
    
    114 P.3d 646
    (2005)).
    8
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    In State v. Grier, 
    171 Wash. 2d 17
    , 39,
    246 P.3d 1260
    (2011), we recognized that
    whether to request a jury instruction on lesser included offenses is a tactical decision.
    "Thus, assuming that defense counsel has consulted with the client in pursuing an
    all or nothing approach, a court should not second-guess that course of action, even
    where, by the court's analysis, the level of risk is excessive and a more conservative
    approach would be more prudent." !d. Here, the tactical decision was prudent, if
    unsuccessful.
    Witherspoon's trial counsel chose to take an "all or nothing" approach that
    included not requesting a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of theft.
    Admittedly, conviction for the robbery charge was a close call. Witherspoon and
    his counsel chose to tactically defend on the possibility that the State could not prove
    to the jury that the property was taken by the use or threatened use of force or injury.
    See RCW 9A.56.190. They lost that bet, and the jury convicted Witherspoon of
    second degree robbery.
    Witherspoon failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of
    counsel under Strickland. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.
    3.     Witherspoon's Persistent Offender Sentence Does Not Constitute Cruel or
    Cruel and Unusual Punishment
    In addition to challenging his robbery conviction, Witherspoon also
    challenges his POAA sentence. He claims that his life sentence violates the Eighth
    9
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the
    Washington State Constitution. The Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual
    punishment while article I, section 14 bars cruel punishment. This court has held
    that the state constitutional provision is more protective than the Eighth Amendment
    in this context. State v. Rivers, 
    129 Wash. 2d 697
    , 712, 
    921 P.2d 495
    (1996) (citing
    State v. Fain, 
    94 Wash. 2d 387
    , 392-93, 
    617 P.2d 720
    (1980)). Consequently, if we
    hold that Witherspoon's life sentence does not violate the more protective state
    provision, we do not need to further analyze the sentence under the Eighth
    Amendment. See 
    id. Fain provides
    four factors to consider in analyzing whether punishment is
    prohibited as cruel under article I, section 14: "(1) the nature ofthe offense, (2) the
    legislative purpose behind the statute, (3) the punishment the defendant would have
    received in other jurisdictions, and (4) the punishment meted out for other offenses
    in the same jurisdiction." !d. at 713 (citing 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 397
    ). In Rivers, we
    analyzed facts similar to the ones in this case under the Fain factors. In Rivers, a
    jury returned a verdict of guilty on the robbery charge. Rivers was sentenced to life
    in prison without the possibility of release because he was found to have committed
    three most serious offenses. He challenged his sentence on a number of grounds,
    including that it violated both the Eighth Amendment and article I, section 14. This
    10
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    court applied the Fain factors, concluding that the POAA, as applied to Rivers, was
    not unconstitutional. 
    Id. We reach
    the same conclusion in this case.
    The first Fain factor is the nature of the offense. 
    Id. As was
    noted in Rivers,
    robbery is a most serious offense. Id.; RCW 9.94A.030(32)(o). "The nature of the
    crime of robbery includes the threat of violence against another person." 
    Rivers, 129 Wash. 2d at 713
    . Here, the victim testified that the defendant told her he had a gun
    behind his back. This statement contains an implied threat.
    The second Fain factor is the legislative purpose behind the statute. 
    Id. In Rivers,
    we recognized that "the purposes of the persistent offender law include
    deterrence of criminals who commit three 'most serious offenses' and the
    segregation of those criminals from the rest of society." !d. (citing State v. Thorne,
    
    129 Wash. 2d 736
    , 775, 
    921 P.2d 514
    (1996), abrogated on other grounds by Blakely
    v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    , 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
    , 
    159 L. Ed. 2d 403
    (2004)).
    The third Fain factor is the punishment that the defendant would have
    received in other jurisdictions. 
    Id. at 714.
    According to the concurrence/dissent,
    there are only four states outside of Washington in which a conviction of second
    degree robbery as a "third strike" offense triggers a mandatory sentence of life
    without parole. Concurrence/dissent at 18. Although these four states' treatment of
    similar crimes indicates that Washington is not alone in this area, the
    11
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    concurrence/dissent is correct that this Fain factor weighs in favor of a finding of
    disproportionality. However, this factor alone is not dispositive.
    The fourth Fain factor is the punishment meted out for other offenses in the
    same jurisdiction. 
    Rivers, 129 Wash. 2d at 714
    . In Washington, all adult offenders
    convicted of three "most serious offenses" are sentenced to life in prison without the
    possibility of release under the POAA. In State v. Lee, we held that a life sentence
    imposed on a defendant convicted of robbery and found to be a habitual criminal
    was not cruel and unusual punishment. !d. at 714 (citing State v. Lee, 
    87 Wash. 2d 932
    ,
    
    558 P.2d 236
    (1976)). In that case, this court held, "'Appellant's sentence does not
    constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The life sentence contained in RCW
    9.92.090 is not cumulative punishment for prior crimes. The repetition of criminal
    conduct aggravates the guilt of the last conviction and justifies a heavier penalty for
    the crime."' 
    Id. at 714-15
    (quoting 
    Lee, 87 Wash. 2d at 937
    ). In Washington, "most
    serious offenses," including robbery, carry with them the sentence of life in prison
    without the possibility of release when the offender has a history of at least two other
    similarly serious offenses.
    Considering the four Fain factors, Witherspoon's sentence of life in prison
    without the possibility of release does not violate article I, section 14 of the
    Washington State Constitution or the Eighth Amendment to the United States
    12
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    Constitution. This court has repeatedly held that a life sentence after a conviction
    for robbery is neither cruel nor cruel and unusual. See 
    Rivers, 129 Wash. 2d at 715
    ;
    State v. Manussier, 
    129 Wash. 2d 652
    , 677, 
    921 P.2d 473
    (1996) (a life sentence
    imposed for second degree robbery under POAA did not constitute cruel or cruel
    and unusual punishment where defendant's prior convictions were for first degree
    robbery); 
    Lee, 87 Wash. 2d at 937
    (holding that a life sentence imposed for robbery
    under habitual criminal statute did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
    where defendant's prior convictions were for robbery, two second degree burglaries,
    and second degree assault). Here, Witherspoon's earlier offenses were for first
    degree burglary and residential burglary with a firearm. The sentence of life in
    prison without the possibility of release for this third strike offense is proportionate
    to the crime.
    As noted, because we hold that Witherspoon's life sentence does not violate
    the Washington Constitution's prohibition on cruel punishment, we do not need to
    further analyze Witherspoon's sentence under the Eighth Amendment. However,
    Witherspoon claims that recent United States Supreme Court precedent regarding
    the Eighth Amendment prohibits life sentences for offenders in his position. This
    argument is entirely without merit.
    13
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    Witherspoon cites to Graham v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 48
    , 
    130 S. Ct. 2011
    , 
    176 L. Ed. 2d 825
    (2010), and Miller v. Alabama,_ U.S._, 
    132 S. Ct. 2455
    , 183 L.
    Ed. 2d 407 (2012), for the proposition that a second degree robbery conviction
    cannot give rise to a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
    release. He contends that the sentencing court must be able to reject such sentences
    when warranted by the pettiness of the offense or the characteristics of the offender.
    Graham and Miller are readily distinguishable and do not support such a claim.
    In 
    Graham, 132 S. Ct. at 2034
    , the United States Supreme Court held that the
    Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life sentences without the possibility
    of release on juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide. Two years later in
    
    Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2460
    , the Court held that mandatory sentencing of life without
    release for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth
    Amendment. In Miller, the Court noted that Roper v. Simmons, 
    543 U.S. 551
    , 569,
    
    125 S. Ct. 1183
    , 
    161 L. Ed. 2d 1
    (2005), and Graham establish that children are
    constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. 
    Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2464
    . This line of cases has relied on three argued differences between children and
    adults:    (1) children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of
    responsibility that can lead to impulsivity and risk taking; (2) children are vulnerable
    to negative influences and have little control over their environments; and
    14
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (3) children's characters are not well formed, meaning that their actions are less
    likely than adults to be evidence of depravity. 
    Id. Graham and
    Miller unmistakably rest on the differences between children and
    adults and the attendant propriety of sentencing children to life in prison without the
    possibility of release. Witherspoon was an adult when he committed all three of his
    strike offenses.    These cases do not support Witherspoon's argument that all
    sentencing systems that mandate life in prison without the possibility of release for
    second degree robbery are per se invalid under the Eighth Amendment.
    Under our established precedent, along with that of the United States Supreme
    Court, Witherspoon's sentence violates neither article I, section 14 of our state
    constitution nor the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We
    accordingly affirm the Court of Appeals, upholding Witherspoon's POAA sentence.
    4.     The Law Does Not Require That Witherspoon's Previous Strike Offenses Be
    Proved to a Jury Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
    Witherspoon claims that previous strike offenses must be proved to a jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt within the context of sentencing under the POAA. He
    argues that prior convictions are elements of a crime when they elevate a class B
    felony to a third strike offense. Witherspoon concedes that Blakely contains an
    15
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    exception for prior convictions3 but contends that the United States Supreme Court's
    recent decision in Alleyne v. United States,_ U.S._, 
    133 S. Ct. 2151
    , 
    186 L. Ed. 2d
    314 (2013), eliminates justification for this exception. This argument fails.
    In Apprendi v. New Jersey the United States Supreme Court held that"[ O]ther
    than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime
    beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved
    beyond a reasonable doubt." 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
    , 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 435
    (2000) (emphasis added). Several years later in 
    Blakely, 542 U.S. at 313-14
    , the
    United States Supreme Court held that sentencing above the statutory maximum of
    the standard range based on the sentencing judge's finding of deliberate cruelty
    violated a defendant's right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment to the United
    States Constitution.     However, the Court specifically noted, "By reversing the
    judgment below, we are not . . . 'find[ing] determinate sentencing schemes
    unconstitutional.'     This case is not about whether determinate sentencing is
    constitutional, only about how it can be implemented in a way that respects the Sixth
    Amendment." I d. at 308 (second alteration in original) (citation omitted). Nowhere
    3
    State v. Magers, 
    164 Wash. 2d 174
    , 193, 
    189 P.3d 126
    (2008) ("[T]he Court of Appeals has held
    that Blakely does not apply to sentencing under the POAA, Blakely being specifically directed at
    exceptional sentences. State v. Ball, 
    127 Wash. App. 956
    , 957, 959-60, 
    113 P.3d 520
    (2005). We
    agree with this conclusion.").
    16
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    in Blakely did the Court question Apprendi's exception for prior convictions or the
    propriety of determinate sentencing schemes.
    Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court again considered which
    facts must be proved to a jury under the Sixth Amendment if such facts may increase
    a criminal sentence. Alleyne, 
    133 S. Ct. 2151
    . The Court held that any fact that
    increases a mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is an element of the crime that
    must be submitted to the jury. 
    Id. at 2155.
    Witherspoon argues that under Alleyne's
    reasoning, prior convictions must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
    before they can be used to enhance a sentence. This is, however, incorrect. Like
    Blakely, nowhere in Alleyne did the Court question Apprendi' s exception for prior
    convictions. It is improper for us to read this exception out of Sixth Amendment
    doctrine unless and until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise.
    Accordingly, Witherspoon's argument that recent United States Supreme Court
    precedent dictates that his prior convictions must be proved to a jury beyond a
    reasonable doubt is unsupported.
    We have long held that for the purposes of the POAA, a judge may find the
    fact of a prior conviction by a preponderance of the evidence. In 
    Manussier, 129 Wash. 2d at 681-84
    , we held that because other portions of the SRA utilize a
    preponderance standard, the appropriate standard for the POAA is by a
    17
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    preponderance of the evidence. We also held that the POAA does not violate state
    or federal due process by not requiring that the existence of prior strike offenses be
    decided by a jury. 
    Id. at 682-83.
    This court has consistently followed this holding.
    We have repeatedly held that the right to jury determinations does not extend to the
    fact of prior convictions for sentencing purposes. See State v. McKague, 
    172 Wash. 2d 802
    , 803 n.1, 262 P .3d 1225 (20 11) (collecting cases); see also In re Pers. Restraint
    of Lavery, 
    154 Wash. 2d 249
    , 256, 
    111 P.3d 837
    (2005) ("In applying Apprendi, we
    have held that the existence of a prior conviction need not be presented to a jury and
    proved beyond a reasonable doubt."); State v. Smith, 
    150 Wash. 2d 135
    , 139, 
    75 P.3d 934
    (2003) (prior convictions do not need to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable
    doubt for the purposes of sentencing under the POAA).
    "The doctrine [of stare decisis] requires a clear showing that an established
    rule is incorrect and harmful before it is abandoned." In re Rights to Waters of
    Stranger Creek, 
    77 Wash. 2d 649
    , 653, 
    466 P.2d 508
    (1970). Witherspoon has not
    made such a showing. Accordingly, it is settled law in this state that the procedures
    of the POAA do not violate federal or state due process. Neither the federal nor state
    constitution requires that previous strike offenses be proved to a jury. Furthermore,
    the proper standard of proof for prior convictions is by a preponderance of the
    evidence.
    18
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the
    existence of prior convictions as predicate strike offenses for the purposes of the
    POAA. State v. Knippling, 
    166 Wash. 2d 93
    , 100, 
    206 P.3d 332
    (2009) (quoting In re
    Pers. Restraint of Cadwallader, 
    155 Wash. 2d 867
    , 876, 
    123 P.3d 456
    (2005)). In State
    v. Hunley, 
    175 Wash. 2d 901
    , 915, 
    287 P.3d 584
    (2012), this court held that
    "constitutional due process requires at least some evidence of the alleged
    convictions." Furthermore, "'[t]he best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified
    copy of the judgment."' !d. at 910 (quoting State v. Ford, 
    137 Wash. 2d 472
    , 480, 
    973 P.2d 452
    (1999)).
    Here, the trial court possessed certified copies of three judgments and
    sentences from Snohomish County. Exs. 2-4. Exhibit 3 showed the defendant had
    committed a residential burglary with a firearm, which is a most serious offense
    pursuant to RCW 9.94A.030(32)(t). Exhibit 4 demonstrated that the defendant had
    committed a first degree burglary, which is a most serious offense pursuant to RCW
    9.94A.030(32)(a). The court noted at sentencing, "I believe that it is the same person
    in light of the presentence investigation as well as the certified copy that's entered."
    Reporter's Tr. on Appeal (Sentencing) at 35. Accordingly, the State met its burden
    of proving two previous strike offenses by a preponderance of the evidence.
    19
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    United States Supreme Court precedent, as well as this court's own precedent,
    dictate that under the POAA, the State must prove previous convictions by a
    preponderance of the evidence and the defendant is not entitled to a jury
    determination on this issue. Here, based on certified copies of two judgments and
    sentences, the trial court determined that Witherspoon is a persistent offender and
    must be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. We affirm the
    Court of Appeals, upholding Witherspoon's POAA sentence.
    CONCLUSION
    We affirm the Court of Appeals on all four issues accepted for review. First,
    there was sufficient evidence to support Witherspoon's second degree robbery
    conviction. Second, Witherspoon failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective
    assistance of counsel on the grounds that he and his counsel tactically determined
    not to request a jury instruction on first degree theft as a lesser included offense,
    hoping for a not guilty verdict if the State failed to prove all elements of the greater
    offense. Third, Witherspoon's life sentence without the possibility of release does
    not constitute cruel or cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, the law does not
    require that Witherspoon's previous strike offenses be proved to a jury beyond a
    reasonable doubt.      We accordingly affirm the Court of Appeals, upholding the
    robbery conviction and the POAA life sentence without the possibility of release.
    20
    State v. Witherspoon., No. 88118-9
    WE CONCUR:
    21
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    NO. 88118-9
    GORDON McCLOUD, J. (concurring and dissenting)-! agree that
    Alvin Witherspoon's conviction must be affirmed.           There was certainly
    sufficient evidence to support his conviction of second degree robbery, despite
    the bravery of the victim in this case. The robbery statute focuses on the
    defendant's "use or threatened use" of force, fear, etc., not on the courage of
    the victim in response. RCW 9A.56.190.
    In addition, following State v. Grier, 
    171 Wash. 2d 17
    , 
    246 P.3d 1260
    (20 11 ), the ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails on this direct appeal:
    if Mr. Witherspoon seeks to prove that his lawyer's failure to ask for a lesser
    included offense instruction was something other than tactical, he must submit
    some evidence to prove it.
    I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's decision to affirm
    the sentence. The trial judge in this case-an experienced jurist-stated that
    life without parole was disproportionately harsh for Witherspoon's offense
    and that if he had any discretion to impose a lower sentence, he would have
    done so.     The controlling Washington case interpreting the applicable
    1
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    provision of the Washington State Constitution is State v. Fain, 
    94 Wash. 2d 387
    ,
    
    617 P.2d 720
    (1980). Fain requires us to do just such a disproportionality
    analysis now, in reviewing the sentence.
    We should therefore subject Witherspoon's sentence to the four-factor
    disproportionality analysis this court adopted in Fain. Under that analysis, I
    conclude that Witherspoon's         sentence-a mandatory term           of life
    imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the third "strike" offense
    of second degree robbery-violates article I, section 14 of our state
    constitution. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority's holding on
    that issue.
    I.     The Experienced Trial Judge Stated That He Would Not Have
    Imposed a Sentence of Life without the Possibility of Parole If
    He Was Not Required To Do So
    Witherspoon received his "third strike" life sentence for a second
    degree robbery that is best described as inept. His victim attested to this at
    the sentencing hearing, where she exhorted him to pursue an interest to which
    he was better suited:
    I just would like to address Alvin ... because I really had a lot
    of sleepless nights over this and felt that ... I wanted a fair and
    just sentence or whatever for him. And [I] felt really bad for him
    and talked to a lot of people about this and nobody seemed to
    really have any compassion for him whatsoever. I think I had
    more compassion for him than anybody. And then I learned that
    2
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    he just does this over and over and over again and he doesn't
    know anything else and I feel for his mom and his girlfriend and
    they stand behind him and he just keeps doing this over and over
    and he is a really lousy thief and he needs to know that he has
    other potential and that he could learn something else and he
    might not be so lucky next time, because I'm damned if I'm
    going to be the one dead .... I hope you, Alvin, get some --
    there's a lot of opportunities in jail and that you should take every
    one of them, and find what you're good at, and it's not being a
    thief so find something else and something that you like is --
    probably something you're interested [in] is probably something
    that you're good at and I doubt if it's being a thiefbecause you're
    [not] getting much out of it.
    Reporter's Transcript on Appeal (TR) (Sentencing) at 37-38.
    I quote Ms. Pittario's statement at length not only because it captures
    the bumbling nature of Witherspoon's crime but also because it expresses her
    sincere belief that Mr. Witherspoon, who was 36 at the time, might reform.
    The trial judge who sentenced Witherspoon, the late Judge Craddock
    Verser, clearly shared this belief. His statement at sentencing, which I will
    also quote at length, leaves no doubt that were it not for the constraints
    imposed on him by the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the
    Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, he would not
    have sentenced Witherspoon to a life term:
    When I first started in this profession years ago in 1980,
    there was a prison and parole system and judges had discretion
    to send people to jail, prison, parole, a number of different
    discretionary possibilities at every sentencing and you could take
    3
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    something like this crime and look at it and go, okay, serious
    crime, it obviously affected Ms. Pittario. Nevertheless, is this the
    type of crime that you want to put somebody in prison for the rest
    of their life for. And, urn, exercising discretion I wouldn't do
    that.
    I -- over the last week, I -- I've never done a persistent
    offender sentencing, we just don't have that many in Jefferson
    County. Over the last week I looked at the statute and I was
    looking at the case law of what kind of discretion if any I had. I
    don't. I don't have any discretion. I don't take any pleasure, Mr.
    Witherspoon, in sentencing you as a persistent offender. That's
    a choice that was made in the filing decision and the decision that
    went to trial. ...
    The arguments that I should arrest judgment are -- quite
    frankly they were appealing to me. I said this young man is [3 6]
    years old ....
    . . . I didn't think you should go to prison the rest ofyour
    life and I don 't mind putting that on the record but I have no
    discretion at all.
    
    Id. at 41-43
    (emphasis added). This is an accurate statement of the law. Under
    Washington's persistent offender statute, the trial court had no discretion to
    sentence Witherspoon to anything other than life imprisonment with no
    possibility of parole.   RCW 9.94A.570 ("[n]otwithstanding the statutory
    maximum sentence or any other provision of this chapter, a persistent offender
    shall be sentenced to a term of total confinement for life without the possibility
    of release").
    4
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    II.    For Purposes of Article I, Section 14, of the Washington State
    Constitution, Life without Parole Is a Harsher Penalty than Life
    with the Possibility of Parole; the Rivers Holding Ignores This
    Distinction and Is No Longer Good Law
    The majority rejects Witherspoon's article I, section 14 challenge solely
    on the basis of this court's decisions in In re Personal Restraint of Grisby, 
    121 Wash. 2d 419
    , 527, 
    858 P.2d 901
    (1993), and State v. Rivers, 
    129 Wash. 2d 697
    ,
    
    921 P.2d 495
    (1996). In so doing, the majority errs.
    To the extent that Grisby applies at all to SRA convictions, 1 it is strictly
    limited to the Sixth Amendment context. 
    Grisby, 121 Wash. 2d at 430
    ("The
    case before us is not an Eighth Amendment case [but] rather[] a Sixth
    Amendment case relating to a defendant's right to a jury trial."); U.S. CONST.
    amends. VI, VIII. The petitioner in Grisby argued that the statute under which
    he had been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole violated the
    Sixth Amendment because it penalized him for invoking his right to a jury
    trial. 
    Id. at 421.
    That statute imposed a maximum penalty of life without
    parole on a defendant convicted of aggravated murder following a jury trial,
    but a maximum of life with parole for a defendant who pleaded guilty. 
    Id. This court
    rejected Grisby's Sixth Amendment argument on the basis that
    1
    1 note that State v. Thomas explicitly distinguishes Grisby as a "pre-
    Sentencing Reform Act ... case." 
    150 Wash. 2d 821
    , 848, 
    83 P.3d 970
    (2004).
    5
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    because parole is granted '"strictly by grace through the Board of Prison
    Terms and Paroles,'" a defendant sentenced to life with the possibility of
    parole cannot actually expect to serve less than a life sentence. 
    Id. at 426-27
    (quoting State v. Frampton, 
    95 Wash. 2d 469
    , 529, 
    627 P.2d 922
    (1981)
    (Dimmick, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)). That conclusion did not
    lead the Grisby court to hold that there is never a significant distinction
    between life with and without the possibility of parole. Rather, it led to the
    much narrower holding that the distinction was not significant enough to
    trigger the prohibition ~under United States v. Jackson, 
    390 U.S. 570
    , 583, 
    88 S. Ct. 1209
    , 
    20 L. Ed. 2d 138
    (1968)) against '"needless encouragement of
    guilty pleas."' 
    Grisby, 121 Wash. 2d at 427
    (quoting 
    Frampton, 95 Wash. 2d at 530
    (Dimmick, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)). 2
    Despite the narrowness of that holding and its limitation to the Sixth
    Amendment context, the Rivers majority relied on Grisby to conclude that life
    2 Notably, the Ninth Circuit granted Mr. Grisby's petition for writ of habeas
    corpus challenging that sentencing decision and compelled the State to resentence
    him, precisely because it rejected our decision that there is no constitutional
    distinction between life with and without parole. Grisby v. Blodgett, 
    130 F.3d 365
    ,
    369-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that federal precedent "establishes that, as a matter
    of law, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is significantly different
    from a sentence of life with the possibility of parole" for purposes of the Jackson
    decision).
    6
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    with and without the possibility of parole are indistinguishable for purposes
    of an article I, section 14 challenge. 3 The court reached that conclusion
    without analyzing Grisby's relevance to article I, section 14 and Fain.
    This court has never expressly overruled Rivers' holding on the
    distinction between life with and without the possibility of parole. But it did
    so impliedly in State v. Thomas, 
    150 Wash. 2d 821
    , 
    83 P.3d 970
    (2004). Thomas
    held that there is a significant difference between life with and without the
    possibility of parole for purposes of the Apprendi rule. 4 
    15 0 Wash. 2d at 84
    7-
    48. After Thomas, a defendant convicted of murder under Washington's SRA
    cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless aggravating factors are found
    by a jury, because a "sentence of life without parole is an increased sentence
    3
    
    Rivers, 129 Wash. 2d at 714
    ("This court has held that the distinction between
    life sentences with and without parole is not significant." (citing 
    Grisby, 121 Wash. 2d at 427
    )). In Fain, the State urged this court to proceed as if Jimmy Fain had not
    actually received a life sentence, since "the availability of parole and 'good
    behavior' credits" created "a likelihood" that Fain would actually serve far less than
    a lifetime behind bars. 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 393
    (citing RCW 9.95.110, .070). We
    declined this invitation on the ground that a prisoner "has no right to parole, which
    is merely a privilege granted by [an] administrative body." !d. at 394 (citing
    January v. Porter, 
    75 Wash. 2d 768
    , 774, 
    453 P.2d 876
    (1969)).
    4
    Under the Apprendi rule, "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime
    beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved
    beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 
    530 U.S. 466
    , 490, 
    120 S. Ct. 2348
    , 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 435
    (2000).
    7
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    as compared to life with the possibility of parole in capital cases." !d. at 848
    (emphasis added). 5
    As the majority notes, the Thomas court purported to distinguish Rivers
    on the basis that it did not involve an "Apprendi problem." !d. But for
    purposes of the question presented in this case, that is a distinction without a
    difference. Neither logic nor precedent supports the theory that an "increase"
    under Thomas/Apprendi is meaningless for purposes of an article I, section
    14/Fain analysis. In spite of its dicta to the contrary, the Thomas decision
    cannot be confined to the Sixth Amendment context. It is directly relevant to
    the question presented in this case.
    5
    The majority asserts that Thomas is limited to capital sentencing cases.
    Majority at 13 n.2. It is true that the Thomas court cited the "statutory scheme" at
    issue in that case-according to which "a defendant charged with murder is not
    eligible for either life without parole or the death penalty unless aggravators are
    found beyond a reasonable doubt"-as support for its conclusion that the legislature
    intended life with and without parole to be "wholly different" sentences in the
    context of a capital case. 
    Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d at 848
    . But it would be absurd to
    reach a contrary conclusion in the context of the three strikes statute simply because
    that statute makes no provision whatsoever for the more lenient sentence. Like the
    capital sentencing statute at issue in Thomas, the POAA imposes life without parole
    as punishment for the "aggravat[ ed] ... guilt" associated with particular criminal
    conduct. 
    Rivers, 129 Wash. 2d at 714
    -15 ('"The repetition of criminal conduct
    aggravates the guilt of the last conviction and justifies a heavier penalty for the
    crime."' (quoting State v. Lee, 
    87 Wash. 2d 932
    , 937, 
    558 P.2d 236
    (1976))). Under
    the POAA, as under the capital sentencing statutes at issue in Thomas, a "sentence
    of life without parole is an increased sentence as compared to life with the possibility
    of parole." 
    Thomas, 150 Wash. 2d at 848
    .
    8
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    I would therefore not resolve Witherspoon's article I, section 14
    argument by resurrecting Rivers' reliance on Grisby. To the extent Rivers
    held that there is no distinction between a sentence of life with and without
    parole, it is no longer good law. As this court acknowledged in Thomas, life
    without parole is a unique sentence, harsher and more punitive than life with
    the possibility of parole. 6
    6
    While the Thomas decision alone precludes the majority's reliance on
    Grisby and Rivers to reject Witherspoon's article I, section 14 challenge, it should
    be noted that that reliance is also inconsistent with United States Supreme Court
    precedent. In Graham v. Florida, the Court concluded that for purposes of the
    Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, the sentence of life
    without parole has severe and punitive characteristics distinguishing it from a
    sentence of life with the possibility of parole. 
    560 U.S. 48
    , 69, 
    130 S. Ct. 2011
    , 
    176 L. Ed. 2d 825
    (20 10) ("The State does not execute the offender sentenced to life
    without parole, but the sentence alters the offender's life by a forfeiture that is
    irrevocable."). The Graham holding rested on those characteristics-not, as the
    majority would have it, on "the differences between children and adults," majority
    at 16-and on prior Eighth Amendment cases in which "the severity of sentences
    that deny convicts the possibility of parole" played an integral part in the Court's
    
    decision. 560 U.S. at 59-60
    (citing Rummel v. Estelle, 
    445 U.S. 263
    , 
    100 S. Ct. 1133
    , 
    63 L. Ed. 2d 382
    (1980) and Solem v. Helm, 
    463 U.S. 277
    , 
    103 S. Ct. 3001
    ,
    
    77 L. Ed. 2d 637
    (1983)). In short, Graham unambiguously holds that the sentence
    of life without parole is more severe, for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, than
    the sentence of life with the possibility of parole.
    As the majority acknowledges, article I, section 14 of the Washington
    Constitution is more protective of individual rights than the Eighth Amendment.
    Majority at 10 (citing 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 392
    ). It follows that article I, section 14
    must recognize the unique severity oflife without parole. It cannot be that our more
    protective constitutional provision would fail to account for "harshness" that is
    dispositive in Eighth Amendment cases. 
    Graham, 560 U.S. at 70
    .
    9
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Just as life without parole is harsher than life with parole, for purposes
    of article I, section 14, mandatory life without parole is harsher than
    discretionary life without parole. This is true as a factual matter: the trial
    judge in this case explicitly stated that he would not impose a life without
    parole sentence if it were not mandatory. It is also true as a legal matter; in
    Fain, we noted that "Washington [was then] one of only three states which
    still retains a habitual criminal statute imposing a mandatory life sentence
    after any three felonies." 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 399
    (emphasis added) (citing
    Rummel v. Estelle, 
    445 U.S. 263
    , 279, 
    100 S. Ct. 1133
    , 
    63 L. Ed. 2d 382
    (1980); 
    id. at 296
    (Powell, J., dissenting)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan,
    
    501 U.S. 957
    , 996, 
    111 S. Ct. 2680
    , 
    115 L. Ed. 2d 836
    (1991) (acknowledging
    that the petitioner's sentence-life without the possibility of parole-was
    "unique in that it is the second most severe known to the law," more severe
    than discretionary life without parole ). 7
    7
    In Harmelin, the majority rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment
    requires a sentencing court to exercise discretion (to consider mitigating or
    aggravating circumstances) before imposing a sentence of life without 
    parole. 501 U.S. at 994-95
    ; 
    id. at 1004
    (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Court rejected that
    argument, however, because it declined to apply a proportionality analysis to the
    petitioner's sentence. 
    Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 994-95
    . In Fain, this court adopted
    the proportionality analysis endorsed by the dissenters in Harmelin. For purposes
    of that analysis, a mandatory sentence is more severe than a sentence that permits
    the trial court to consider the individual circumstances of a defendant's offense.
    10
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    As a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole,
    Witherspoon's sentence is almost as unusual as the sentence imposed in Fain.
    Of the 4 7 jurisdictions that have habitual offender statutes, only 5 (including
    Washington) would impose a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a
    third strike conviction of second degree robbery. See infra Part III.3.
    III.   A Mandatory Sentence of Life without Parole Is
    Disproportionate to the Offense of Second Degree Robbery
    Committed as a "Third Strike"; Witherspoon's Sentence Thus
    Violates Article I, Section 14 of the Washington State
    Constitution
    The proportionality analysis this court adopted in Fain requires us to
    consider four factors in an article I, section 14 challenge: (1) the legislative
    purpose behind the challenged statute, (2) the nature of the defendant's
    offense, (3) the punishment the defendant would have received in other
    jurisdictions for the same offense, and (4) the punishment the defendant would
    have received in Washington for other offenses. 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 397
    (citing
    Hart v. Coiner, 
    483 F.2d 136
    , 140-43 (4th Cir. 1973)). In light of these
    factors, a sentence of mandatory life without the possibility of parole violates
    article I, section 14 protections when imposed for a second degree robbery
    offense.
    1.     Legislative purpose behind the POAA
    11
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    The POAA was enacted pursuant to popular initiative in 1993. LAws
    OF   1994, ch. 1, § 2.   Its statement of findings and intent identified four
    purposes served by the new law:
    (2) By sentencing three-time, most serious offenders to
    prison for life without the possibility of parole, the people intend
    to:
    (a) Improve public safety by placing the most dangerous
    criminals in prison.
    (b) Reduce the number of serious, repeat offenders by
    tougher sentencing.
    (c) Set proper and simplified sentencing practices that both
    the victims and persistent offenders can understand.
    (d) Restore public trust in our criminal justice system by
    directly involving the people in the process.
    I d. § 1 (emphasis added).
    Washington's POAA was the nation's first "three strikes" law; it was
    passed in the wake of several high profile and horrific crimes committed by
    repeat offenders. 8 Proponents of the POAA were motivated by the belief that
    harsh sentencing laws would effectively deter and incapacitate the "relatively
    small component of the offender population" who posed the greatest danger
    to public safety. 9
    8
    Jennifer Cox Shapiro, Comment, Life in Prison for Stealing $48?:
    Rethinking Second-Degree Robbery as a Strike Offense in Washington State, 34
    SEATTLE U. L. REV. 935, 939-44 (2011).
    9
    
    Id. at 940
    (quoting Edwin Meese III, Three-Strikes Laws Punish and
    Protect, 7 FED. SENT'G REP. 58, 58 (1994).
    12
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    As we acknowledged in State v. Lee, habitual offender statutes
    in general, including the one that predated the POAA in Washington, serve
    punitive as well as preventative purposes: "[t]he repetition of criminal conduct
    aggravates the guilt of the last conviction and justifies a heavier penalty for
    the crime." 
    87 Wash. 2d 932
    , 937, 
    558 P.2d 236
    (1976) (citing State v. Miles,
    
    34 Wash. 2d 55
    , 61-62, 
    207 P.2d 1209
    (1949)); accord State v. Manussier, 
    129 Wash. 2d 652
    , 677 n.108, 
    921 P.2d 473
    (1996) (citing 
    Lee, 87 Wash. 2d at 937
    ).
    But the POAA differs from the prior habitual offender statute in its imposition
    of mandatory life sentences without parole.     LAWS OF    1994, ch. 1, § 2(4). 10
    The legislative history indicates that the primary impetus for this change was
    the desire to protect the public by incapacitating the most dangerous
    offenders.
    This factor would weigh in favor of upholding Witherspoon's
    sentence if he were in "the relatively small component of the offender
    population," who are the most incorrigible, that is, the worst of the worst. But
    neither the victim nor the trial judge believed that he fell into that category.
    10
    See also 
    id. at 939
    & n.38 (describing the habitual offender statute that
    predated the POAA in Washington); LAWS OF 1992, ch. 145, § 8 (describing ways
    in which defendants sentenced to total confinement under the 1992 sentencing
    reform act can earn early release credits).
    13
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Thus, I cannot conclude that this factor weighs in favor of a finding of
    proportionality.
    2.    Nature of Witherspoon's offense
    Witherspoon's two prior "strike" convictions were for first degree
    burglary and residential burglary with a firearm; his third strike conviction
    was for second degree robbery. These are serious offenses-certainly more
    serious than the "wholly nonviolent crimes involving small amounts of
    property" at issue in 
    Fain. 94 Wash. 2d at 402
    .
    But Witherspoon's final offense stands m stark contrast to those
    triggering the harshest penalties under Washington's SRA. See infra Part
    III.4. As noted by the majority, Witherspoon's victim did not realize that
    Witherspoon had retained any of her property until after Witherspoon was
    already driving away from her house. Majority at 6. Because of that fact, the
    dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals below concluded that Witherspoon
    had used stealth to accomplish the taking but had not employed the "force or
    fear" necessary to a robbery conviction under RCW 9A.56.190. See State v.
    Witherspoon, 
    171 Wash. App. 271
    , 320,
    286 P.3d 996
    (2012) (Armstrong, J.,
    dissenting). Indeed, the dissent concluded that it was "logically impossible"
    to find that Witherspoon used "force or fear" to prevent his victim from
    14
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    recovering her possessions, since Witherspoon was already leaving when the
    victim noticed that her possessions were in Witherspoon's car and since she
    was not in fact prevented from giving chase. !d. at 321 ("It is logically
    impossible to find that Pittario had the will to retain or recover property, which
    she did not know had been stolen. And the State offered no evidence that
    Witherspoon made any threat that Pittario should not follow them. Pittario
    testified that she was not afraid and, in fact, she gave chase.").
    I agree with the majority that the State need not prove the victim's
    actual, subjective fear in order to sustain a robbery conviction, and I therefore
    disagree with the conclusion of the dissent below. But the fact that the State
    need not prove actual fear to sustain a robbery conviction shows how broadly
    the robbery statute sweeps. In Washington, as in many other states, a person
    can commit the crime of second degree robbery by means of brutal assault
    or-as in Witherspoon's case-by an "implied threat" that the victim seems
    to have regarded as more confusing than frightening. Majority at 7; TR (Trial
    Day 1) at 42-49 (Pittario testimony). 11 Thus, the nature of a second degree
    11
    Ms. Pittario testified that she was not frightened by Mr. Witherspoon's
    statement that he had a pistol concealed behind his back, that she in fact believed
    that he was scared during their brief encounter, and that Mr. Witherspoon never
    threatened her. TR (Trial Day 1) at 42 ("Q. So you must not have been concerned
    that [Mr. Witherspoon] had a pistol? A. No."), 44 ("Q. Now, in fact, the man you
    15
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    robbery offense may vary significantly from case to case.
    Outside the POAA context, a court can consider the facts underlying a
    robbery conviction when imposing a sentence. It may impose a sentence
    anywhere within the standard sentence range; it may also depart from the
    standard range if mitigating circumstances are established.                  RCW
    9.94A.535(1). This discretion is a crucial means of avoiding sentences that
    are "clearly excessive in light of the [SRA's] purpose[s]," 
    id. § (l)(g),
    which
    include ensuring that punishments are both "just" and "proportionate to the
    seriousness ofthe offense," RCW 9.94A.010(2), (1).
    Under the POAA, a court lacks that discretion. In this case, the result
    is severe: a defendant who neither injured nor frightened his victim received
    a sentence generally reserved for society's most violent and predatory
    offenders. Thus, I cannot conclude that the nature of the offense factor weighs
    in favor of upholding this sentence under Fain's second factor.
    In fact, lack of discretion to depart from a habitual offender sentence is
    frequently cited by critics of habitual offender statutes. 12 It has prompted
    saw, you thought he was scared didn't you? A. Yes."), 46 ("Q. But he never
    threatened you in any way? A. No."), 48 ("Q. You didn't fear any injury to yourself,
    your person? A. No.").
    12
    See Robert G. Lawson, PFO Law Reform, A Crucial Step Toward
    16
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    courts in several jurisdictions to adopt sentencing procedures specifically
    designed to prevent the mandatory imposition of excessive punishments under
    recidivist statutes. 13 Indeed, courts have done so in two of the three states
    with habitual offender statutes equivalent to Washington's. 14
    Sentencing Sanity in Kentucky, 97 KY. L.J. 1, 22 (2008-2009) (describing "typical"
    defendants in persistent felony offender case study as those who "suffered
    punishments grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of their crimes"); Michael
    Vitiello, Three Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality?, 87 J. CRIM. L. &
    CRIMINOLOGY 395,396 & n.8 (1997) (collecting cases of"grossly disproportionate
    prison terms" imposed for "minor third strikes"); Erik G. Luna, Foreward: Three
    Strikes in a Nutshell, 20 T. JEFFERSON L. REv. 1, 24 & n.177 (1998) (noting that
    "some judges have simply refused to apply [a three strikes] law when it would lead
    to a disproportionate and unfair sentence").
    13
    State v. Dorthey, 
    623 So. 2d 1276
    , 1280-81 (La. 1993) (adopting rule for
    applying the state's habitual offender statute whereby sentencing court must reduce
    the statutorily mandated minimum if it finds that that minimum "'makes no
    measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment' [or] amount[s] to
    nothing more than 'the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering' and 'is grossly
    out of proportion to the severity of the crime"' (quoting State v. Scott, 
    593 So. 2d 704
    , 710 (La. App. 1991); LA. REV. STAT. 15:529.1)); State v. Barker, 186 W.Va.
    73, 74-75, 
    410 S.E.2d 712
    (1991) (explaining "procedure for analyzing a life
    recidivist sentence under [West Virginia's] proportionality principle" and holding
    that life sentence for third strike offense of "forgery and uttering" violated state
    constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments); Ashley v. State,
    
    538 So. 2d 1181
    , 1184-85 (Miss. 1989) (trial court must perform proportionality
    analysis when imposing life without parole for third strike attempted robbery
    conviction; life without parole is unconstitutional as applied to defendant who stole
    three or four cans of sardines); People v. Anaya, 894 P .2d 28, 32 (Colo. App. 1994)
    (noting that defendant is automatically entitled to proportionality review when
    sentenced under the State's habitual offender statute (citing People v. Mershon, 87 
    4 P.2d 1025
    (Colo. 1994))).
    14
    
    Dorthey, 623 So. 2d at 1280-81
    ; 
    Ashley, 538 So. 2d at 1185
    .
    17
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    As noted above, Washington's POAA was enacted mainly in response
    to public safety concerns: it was designed to ensure that dangerous, violent
    offenders would be permanently segregated from society.                      Applied
    mechanically, the statute can exceed this purpose.
    3.     Punishment in other jurisdictions for second degree
    robbery as a ((third strike" offense
    As noted above, Witherspoon's sentence is almost as rare as the
    sentence this court overturned in Fain. Outside of Washington, there are only
    three states in which a conviction of second degree robbery as a "third strike"
    offense triggers a mandatory sentence of life without parole. 15 In the vast
    15
    These are Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. See App. There was
    certainly some decision making involved in my choice of sister-state robbery
    statutes to use in the appendix. I chose sister-state statutes with elements most
    nearly identical to the crime of which Mr. Witherspoon was convicted. That crime
    was second degree robbery in violation of RCW 9A.56.200 and .190, with no
    aggravating factor alleged (other than the "free crimes" factor, see RCW
    9.94A.535(2)(c)), which does not relate to the manner in which the robbery was
    committed).
    I believe this is the required comparison for three reasons. First, it comports
    with Washington's case law on "comparability" under the SRA, which limits the
    comparability analysis to facts/elements actually admitted to or proved beyond a
    reasonable doubt. State v. Thiefault, 
    160 Wash. 2d 409
    ,414-15, 
    158 P.3d 580
    (2007);
    In re Pers. Restraint ofLavery, 
    154 Wash. 2d 249
    , 258, 111 PJd 837 (2005). Second,
    it is consistent with the comparison undertaken in 
    Fain, 94 Wash. 2d at 399
    -400: a
    statute-to-statute, elements-based comparison. Third, as discussed in State v. Olsen,
    No. 89134-6 (Wash. May 15, 2014), the problems inherent in comparing factual
    allegations, rather than proven factual elements, are virtually insurmountable when
    evaluating other states' crimes.
    18
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    majority of jurisdictions with habitual offender statutes-34 out of 48-such
    a conviction would result in a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years or
    less. 16 Six states impose a mandatory minimum of 25 years or less for a third
    strike offense comparable to Witherspoon's. 17
    This Fain        factor   clearly weighs     in   favor   of a finding        of
    disproportion ali ty.
    Nevertheless, if I had compared certain uncharged facts underlying the
    State's theory of how Witherspoon committed his third "strike" offense-the theory
    that this was a robbery based on a verbal threat involving a nonexistent gun-the
    results under the third Fain factor would be similar. That comparison would add
    only three states to the list of jurisdictions that punish unarmed robbery as a third
    strike with mandatory life without parole. (These are Delaware, New Jersey, and
    Wisconsin. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 832(a)(2), § 4214(b); N.J. STAT. ANN. §
    2C:15-1(1)(b), § 2C:43-7.1.(b)(2); WIS. STAT.§ 939.62(2m)(a)(2m), § 943.32(2).)
    16
    There are 31 jurisdictions in which a third strike conviction for second
    degree robbery triggers an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years or
    less. See App. These are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut,
    Washington, DC, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
    Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North
    Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
    Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Montana. !d. Montana imposes a mandatory life
    sentence on recidivist offenders in most cases, but not where (as in Witherspoon's
    case) injury or threat of injury is an element of the third-strike offense but no injury
    to the victim actually occurs. 
    Id. In those
    cases, the sentence is discretionary. 
    Id. In four
    other states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont),
    habitual offender statutes exist but are not triggered by a third strike conviction for
    second degree robbery. 
    Id. 17 These
    are California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and
    Oklahoma. See 
    id. 19 State
    v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    4.     Punishment in Washington for other offenses
    In the non-POAA context, Washington punishes only one crime with a
    sentence of mandatory life without parole: aggravated first degree murder.
    RCW 9.94A.510, .515. Aggravated first degree murder is a level16 offense,
    the highest "seriousness level" in the SRA. RCW 9.94A.515. The next most
    serious level of offense, level 15, includes homicide by abuse and
    nonaggravated first degree murder. RCW 9.94A.515. In the non-POAA
    context, a person convicted of those crimes might serve as little as 20 years-
    far less than life without parole. 18
    In the non-POAA context, Washington imposes mandatory minimum
    sentences for only five offenses: aggravated and nonaggravated first degree
    murder, first degree assault involving "force or means likely to result in death
    or intended to kill the victim," rape in the first degree, and sexually violent
    predator escape. RCW 9.94A.540(1)(b)-(d). A person convicted of first
    degree murder faces a 20-year mandatory minimum, while a person convicted
    18
    For a defendant with no criminal history, the standard range sentence for
    homicide by abuse or non-aggravated murder is 240-320 months. RCW 9.94A.510.
    For a defendant with two violent prior offenses, the standard range sentence is 281-
    374 months. Id.~ RCW 9.94A.525(9) (if present conviction is for a serious violent
    offense, count two points for each prior violent conviction and one point for each
    prior nonviolent felony conviction).
    20
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    of first degree rape, first degree assault, or sexually violent predator escape
    faces a mandatory minimum of five years. !d. For every other offense, the
    court may impose a sentence below the standard sentence range if "mitigating
    circumstances are established by a preponderance of the evidence." RCW
    9.94A.535.
    The gravity of Witherspoon's third strike offense must not be
    understated; it was deliberate, and the fact that his victim exhibited
    uncommon courage during the offense and extraordinary compassion
    thereafter does not minimize the crime. But neither should that offense be
    amplified beyond all recognition. To punish it with a sentence greater than
    that imposed for the most brutal crimes-homicide, first degree assault, and
    first degree rape-is to disregard two central purposes of the SRA: justice and
    proportionality. RCW 9.94A.010(1), (2).
    Thus, this final Fain factor also weighs m favor of a finding of
    disproportionali ty.
    5.       The proper remedy for the constitutional violation in this
    case is remand for resentencing under the SRA guidelines
    For the reasons given in the analysis above, RCW 9.94A.570 is
    unconstitutional as applied to the particular second degree robbery in this
    case. Article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution does not permit the
    21
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    imposition of mandatory life without parole-the harshest penalty short of
    death-on a second degree robber whose victim testified that he neither
    frightened nor threatened her. Because the POAA is unconstitutional as
    applied to Witherspoon, the proper remedy is to remand for resentencing
    under the SRA guidelines-without the application of the POAA. State v.
    Hunley, 
    175 Wash. 2d 901
    , 916, 
    287 P.3d 584
    (2012) (holding a statute
    unconstitutional as applied does not render it completely inoperable; rather, it
    prohibits the future application of the statute in a similar context).
    At Witherspoon's original sentencing hearing, the State characterized
    its charging decision as "suspenders and belt." TR (Sentencing) at 30. The
    State is correct.    Its second degree robbery charge also included the
    aggravating factor that "[t]he defendant has committed multiple current
    offenses and the defendant's high offender score results in some of the current
    offenses going unpunished." RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c). That statute places the
    determination of whether that aggravating factor exists, and whether it
    supports a sentence above the standard range, in the hands of the judge. !d.
    At the original sentencing, where the judge felt compelled to impose life
    without parole, the judge had no reason to address that aggravating factor.
    The court is free to address it at resentencing.
    22
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    CONCLUSION
    The question before us in this case is narrow. We are asked whether it
    is unconstitutional to force a trial court judge to impose a mandatory sentence
    of life without parole on a defendant whose third "strike" is a second degree
    robbery committed in a manner that did not cause physical harm or actual fear.
    The answer to that question is yes.
    This answer is based on the legal description of the crime of second
    degree robbery (RCW 9A.56.190), the facts of its accomplishment in this
    case, and the mandatory nature of the penalty.
    We have not been asked to rule on whether it would be unconstitutional
    to sentence a defendant to life without parole for a different crime, or for this
    crime committed in a different manner.        The remedy I would impose is
    therefore particular to this case. The legislature, not this court, is the body
    with the power to draft a procedure that would be constitutional in all cases.
    I express no opinion as to what sort of procedure might comply with article I,
    section 14 protections. Pursuant to the Fain analysis conducted above, I
    conclude only that the current procedure, according to which a sentencing
    judge has no discretion to impose a sentence lower than life without parole,
    23
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    does not comply with state constitutional requirements. 19             A different
    procedure certainly would. 20
    19
    Other states have taken a variety of approaches to the problem of
    disproportionate sentencing in the "three strikes" context-there are no doubt
    multiple ways this problem could be resolved. In at least four states, persons
    convicted under habitual offender statutes are automatically entitled to a
    constitutional proportionality review upon sentencing.           See supra note 13
    (explaining sentencing procedures in Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West
    Virginia). In one state, third strike offenders receive mandatory life sentences in
    most cases, but not where (as in Witherspoon's case) injury or threat of injury is an
    element ofthe third strike offense but no injury to the victim actually occurs. MONT.
    CODE ANN. § 46-18-219(b ), § 46-18-222. In those cases, the sentence is
    discretionary. MONT. CODE ANN. § 46-18-222. See also supra note 16, discussing
    the various penalties less harsh than mandatory life without parole, which are
    imposed for third strike second degree robbery convictions in the overwhelming
    majority of jurisdictions.
    20
    See State v. Pillatos, 
    159 Wash. 2d 459
    , 470-76, 
    150 P.3d 1130
    (2007)
    (applying new legislation, designed to fix the sentencing scheme declared
    unconstitutional in Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
    , 
    124 S. Ct. 2531
    , 159 L.
    Ed. 2d 403 (2004), retroactively).
    24
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    25
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    APPENDIX OF "PERSISTENT OFFENDER" LAWS
    State        Mandatory Minimum for            Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Alabama            10 years                ALA. CODE§ 13A-8-43(2)(b) (third
    degree robbery equivalent is class
    C felony),§ 13A-5-9(b)(l) (third
    strike class C felony punished as if
    class A felony), § 13A-5-6(a)(l)
    (class A felony punished with 10
    years to life)
    Alaska             4 years                 ALASKA STAT.§ 11.41.510 (second
    degree robbery equivalent is class
    B felony), § 12.55.125(d)(3) (class
    B felony as third felony conviction
    triggers 4 to 7 year sentence)
    Arizona            6 years                 ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-1902
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class 4 felony); § 13-703(C), (J),
    § 13-706 (third strike class 4 felony
    triggers 8 year minimum sentence)
    Arkansas           5 years                 ARK. CODE ANN.§ 5-12-102
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class B felony), § 5-4-50l(a)(l),
    (2)(C) (third strike class B felony
    triggers 5 to 30 year sentence)
    California         25 years                CAL. PENAL CODE§ 212.5(c), §
    213(a)(2), § 1192.7(c)(19) (second
    degree robbery equivalent is serious
    felony punishable by a 2 to 5 year
    sentence);§ 667(e)(2)(A)(ii) (third
    serious and/or violent felony
    conviction triggers minimum 25
    year sentence)
    1
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    -                                              ··-
    State        Mandatory Minimum for            Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Colorado           18 years                COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-4-301
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class 4 felony), § 18-1.3-
    401(1)(V)(A) (presumptive
    maximum for class 4 felony is 6
    years),§ 18-1.3-801(1.5)(a) (third
    strike triggers sentence three times
    the maximum presumptive range
    for strike as first offense: 18 years
    for class 4 felony)
    Connecticut        1 year                  CONN. GEN. STAT. § 53a-133, §
    53a-136, § 53a-35a(8) (second
    degree robbery equivalent is class
    D felony, carrying term of not less
    than 1 to 5 years); § 53a-40G), §
    53a-35a(7) (third strike offense
    triggers sentence for next most
    serious degree of felony: 1 to 10
    years)
    Delaware           not applicable (N/A)    DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 5-
    831(a)(2), § 11-42-4201(a)(5), (c),
    § 11-42-4205(b)(5) (second degree
    robbery equivalent a class E violent
    felony, punishable by 5 year
    maximum sentence); § 11-42-
    4215(a) (may trigger greater
    sentence than maximum for third
    felony conviction);§ 11-42-4214
    (habitual offender statute triggered
    by four strikes law)
    2
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State        Mandatory Minimum for                Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    District of       None, unless both priors D.C. CODE§ 22-2801 (minimum for
    Columbia          and current conviction     first robbery offense is two years); §
    are crimes of violence; in 22-1804a(a)(l), (2) (third conviction
    that case, mandatory       for crime of violence triggers 15
    minimum is 2 years         year minimum sentence; otherwise,
    minimum is standard sentence for
    current offense)
    Florida           15 years                   FLA. STAT.§ 812.13(1), (2)(c)
    (second degree robbery equivalent is
    second degree felony), §
    775.084(1 )( c)(1 )(c), (2)(b ),
    (4)( c)(1 )(c) (three-time violent
    offender mandatory minimum term
    of 15 years)
    Georgia            1 year                    GA. CODE ANN.§ 16-8-40(a)(2), (b)
    (statutory term for second degree
    robbery equivalent is 1 to 20 years),
    § 17-1 0-7 (a) (second felony repeat
    offender conviction triggers
    statutory maximum for underlying
    offense but gives judge discretion to
    "probate or suspend the maximum
    sentence prescribed")
    Hawaii             6 years, 8 months         HAW. REV. STAT.§ 708-841(1)(b)
    (second degree robbery equivalent is
    class B felony), § 706-06.5(1 )(b )(iii)
    (third strike class B felony triggers
    sentence of 6 years, 8 months before
    eligible for parole)
    3
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State     Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    T~ird Strike Offense
    Idaho             5 years                   IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-6501, § 18-
    6502(2), § 18-6503 (second degree
    robbery equivalent presumptive
    sentence of 5 years to life); § 19-
    2514 ("persistent violator" third
    strike felony triggers sentence of 5
    years to life)
    Illinois          6 years                   720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/18-1(a), (c),
    730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/5-4.5-35(a)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class 2 felony triggering 3 to 7
    year sentence); 5/5-4.5-95(b)
    (habitual criminal third strike class
    1 or 2 felony conviction triggers
    class X offender status); 5/5-4.5-25
    (class X offender gets 6-30 years)
    Indiana           Advisory minimum of 4     IND. CODE§ 35-42-5-1(2) (second
    years                     degree robbery equivalent is class C
    felony), § 35-50-2-6(a) (class C
    felony advisory sentence is 4 years),
    § 35-50-2-8(h) ("habitual offender"
    third strike felony triggers sentence
    of "not less than the advisory
    sentence for the underlying offense
    nor more than three (3) times the
    advisory sentence for the underlying
    .   -
    offense")
    4
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State      Mandatory Minimum for              Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Iowa              3 years without parole    IOWA CODE§ 711.1(1)(b), § 711.3,
    § 902.9(1 )(d) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is Class C felony
    triggering maximum sentence of 10
    years); § 902.8 ("habitual offender"
    third felony conviction triggers
    sentence of no more than 15 years
    or 3 without parole eligibility)
    Kansas            N/A (no habitual offender KAN, STAT. ANN. § 21-5420(a),
    statute for crimes        (c)( 1), § 21-6804 (second degree
    committed after 1993)     robbery equivalent is level 5
    personal felony with presumptive
    term of 50 months)
    Kentucky          10 years without parole   KY. REV. STAT. ANN.
    § 515.030, § 532.020(1)(b) (second
    degree robbery equivalent is class C
    felony, presumptive term of 5 to 10
    years); § 532.080(3), (6)(b)
    ("persistent felony offender" class C
    felony as third strike triggers
    mandatory minimum of 10 years)
    Louisiana         Life without parole       LA. REV. STAT. ANN.§ 14:65, §
    14:2(B)(23) (second degree robbery
    equivalent is violent crime with
    maximum term of7 years);
    § 15:529.1(A)(3)(b) (third strike
    violent crime triggers sentence of
    life without parole where two priors
    are also crimes of violence)
    5
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State     Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Maine             9 months                  ME. REv. STAT. tit. 17-A §
    651(l)(B)(2), 17-A § 1252(2)(B)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class B crime carrying maximum
    term of 10 years); 17-A § 1252(4-
    A) (third strike felony, such as
    robbery, triggers sentencing class
    that is one class higher than it would
    otherwise be); 17-A § 1252(2)(A),
    (5-A)(A)-(C) (class A felony
    triggers sentence minimum of 9
    months to 30 years)
    Maryland          25 years without parole   MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. LAW § 3-
    402, § 14-101(a)(9), (c)(1)(i), (2),
    (3) (second degree robbery
    equivalent is crime of violence,
    third crime of violence triggers
    minimum sentence of 25 years)
    Massachusetts     Life without parole       MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 265, § 21
    (maximum sentence allowable for
    second degree robbery equivalent is
    life), ch. 279, § 25 (b) ("habitual
    criminal" third felony conviction for
    second degree robbery equivalent
    triggers maximum sentence
    allowable by law for the underlying
    crime, without parole)
    Michigan          None                      MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.530
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    triggers maximum sentence of 15
    years); § 769.11(1)(a) (third strike
    offender may be sentenced to twice
    the maximum for the underlying
    crime)
    6
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Minnesota         10 years without parole   MINN. STAT. § 609.24 (second
    degree robbery equivalent triggers
    maximum sentence of 10 years), §
    609.1 095(1 )(d), (3) (dangerous
    offender third violent felony
    triggers at least the length of the
    presumptive sentence for the
    underlying offense; violent felonies
    include second degree robbery
    equivalent)
    Mississippi       Life without parole       MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-3-73; Ashley
    v. State, 
    538 So. 2d 1181
    (Miss.
    1989) (second degree robbery
    equivalent is crime of violence);
    MISS. CODE ANN.§ 99-19-83
    (where any of three strike offenses
    was crime of violence, defendant
    shall be sentenced to life term
    without parole)
    Missouri          5 years                   Mo. REV. STAT. § 569.030, §
    558.011(2) (second degree robbery
    equivalent is class B felony
    triggering sentence of 5 to 15
    years); § 558.016(3), (7)(2), §
    558.011(1) (persistent offender
    class B felony may be punished as if
    class A felony, triggering sentence
    of 10 to 30 years)
    7
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for                Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Montana           10 years (first 5 years      MONT. CODE ANN. § 45-5-
    without parole)              401(1)(b), (2), § 46-18-219 (b)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    triggers term of2 to 40 years);§ 46-
    18-501 (definition of "persistent
    felony offender"), § 46-18-
    219(1)(b)(iv), § 46-18-222(5) (if
    third strike offense did not result in
    any serious injury to the victim and
    if weapon was not used, then judge
    has discretion to sentence defendant
    to less than a life term);§ 46-18-
    502(2), (3) (persistent felony
    offender sentenced to mandatory
    minimum of 10 years)
    Nebraska           10 years                    NEB. REV. STAT. § 28-324, § 28-
    105(1) (sentence for second degree
    robbery equivalent, class II felony,
    is 1 to 50 years), § 29-2221(1)
    (person convicted on separate
    occasions of two crimes triggering
    sentences of at least one year is
    "habitual criminal" who receives
    minimum sentence of 10 years)
    Nevada             25 years (parole eligible   NEV. REv. STAT. § 200.380(1)(a),
    after 10 years)              (b), (2) (second degree robbery
    equivalent is category B felony,
    penalty of 2 to 15 years), §
    207.012(1)(a),(b)(3), (2) ("habitual
    felon" defined as two prior second
    degree robbery equivalent
    convictions, mandatory minimum of
    25 years, eligibility for parole after
    10 years)
    8
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for              Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    New Hampshire     N/A (no persistent        N.H. REV. STAT. ANN.§ 636:1(I)(b),
    offender statute)         (III), § 651 :2(II)(b) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is class B felony,
    triggering maximum term of7
    years)
    New Jersey         10 years                 N.J. STAT. ANN.§ 2C:15-1(a)(2),
    (b),§ 2C:43-7.1(b), § 2C:43-7(a)(3)
    (person convicted of crime
    including second degree robbery
    equivalent, who has previously been
    convicted of two or more crimes,
    shall be sentenced to a fixed term
    between 10 and 20 years)
    New Mexico        7 years without parole    N.M. STAT. ANN.§ 30-16-2 (second
    \
    degree robbery equivalent is third
    degree felony),§ 31-18-15(A)(9)
    (third degree felony as first offense
    triggers 3 year sentence), § 31-18-
    17(B) (person with 2 prior felony
    convictions is habitual offender;
    sentence for habitual offender shall
    be increased by 4 years)
    New York          4 years                   N.Y. PENAL LAW§ 160.05 (second
    degree robbery equivalent is class D
    felony), § 70.00(2)-(4) (sentence for
    class D felony as first offense is 1 to
    7 years, with judicial discretion for
    imposing a fixed term of 1 year or
    less),§ 70.06(1), (3)(d) ("second
    felony offender" term is 4 to 7
    years)
    9
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State      Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    North Carolina    77 months                 N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-87.1 (second
    degree robbery equivalent is class G
    felony);§ 14-7.2, § 14-7.6
    ("habitual felon" must be sentenced
    at a class level four higher than
    underlying felony); § 14-7.1
    ("habitual felon" is any person
    convicted of a felony three times); §
    15A-1340.17(c) (class C felony as
    third offense triggers presumptive
    sentence of 77-96 months)
    North Dakota      No minimum                N.D. CENT. CODE§ 12.1-22-01(1),
    (2), § 12.1-32-01(4) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is class C felony,
    carrying a maximum penalty of 5
    years and/or fine of$10,000);
    § 12.1-32-09(1)(c), (2)(c) (an adult
    who has previously been convicted
    of two felonies of class C or above
    is an "habitual offender"; third
    strike offense of class C triggers
    maximum sentence of 10 years)
    Ohio               1 year                   OHIO REV. CODE ANN.§
    2911.02(A)(3), (B), §
    2929.14(A)(3)(b) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is third degree
    felony, triggering minimum term of
    9 months);§ 2929.14(A)(3)(a)
    (upon third conviction or guilty
    plea, person convicted of third
    degree felony shall be sentenced to
    term of 1 to 5 years)
    10
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for               Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Oklahoma          20 years                  OKLA. STAT. tit. 21, § 791, § 792, §
    794, § 797, § 799, tit. 57,§ 571
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is a nonviolent offense, triggering
    maximum term of 10 years); OKLA.
    STAT. tit. 21, § 5l.l(B) (third felony
    conviction within 10 year period
    triggers sentence of 20 years to life)
    Oregon            N/A (no habitual offender OR. REv. STAT.§ 164.395(l)(a), (2),
    statute)                  § 161.605(3) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is a class C
    felony, triggering maximum term of
    5 years)
    Pennsylvania      NIA (second degree         18 PA. CONS. STAT.§
    robbery equivalent does   370l(a)(l)(iv), (b),§ 106(a)(4),
    not trigger habitual      (b)(4) (second degree robbery
    offender statute)         equivalent is second degree felony,
    triggering maximum term of 7
    years); 42 PA. CONS. STAT. §
    9714(g) (second degree robbery
    equivalent not a "'crime of
    violence'" and does not trigger
    Pennsylvania's habitual offender
    statute)
    11
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for              Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Rhode Island      5 years                    R.I. GEN. LAWS§ 11-39-1(a), (b)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    as first offense triggers minimum
    sentence of five years),§ 12-19-
    21(a) (person convicted of a felony
    three times and sentenced to more
    than 1 year of imprisonment is an
    "habitual criminal" and shall be
    sentenced to not more than 25 years
    in addition to sentence for which he
    or she was last convicted)
    South Carolina    N/A (second degree         S.C. CODE ANN.§ 16-11-325, § 16-
    robbery equivalent does    1-10(A)(4), (D) (second degree
    not trigger the habitual   robbery equivalent is a class D
    offender statute)          felony and triggers maximum
    sentence of 15 years); § 16-1-120(1)
    (repeat offender statute triggered
    only by class A, B, or C felonies or
    exempt offenses punishable with 20
    year sentence)
    South Dakota      No minimum                 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS§ 22-30-1, §
    22-30-6, § 22-30-7, § 22-6-1(7)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is class 4 felony, triggering
    maximum term of 10 years);§ 22-7-
    7 (second or third felony conviction
    triggers sentence for felony of next
    higher class);§ 22-6-1(6) (class 3
    felony punishable by maximum
    term of 15 years)
    12
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State     Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense                                     --
    Tennessee         6 years                   TENN. CODE ANN. § 39-13-401, §
    40-35-105(b) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is a range I class
    C felony, triggering minimum term
    of3 years); § 40-35-105(a)(2), §
    40-35-106(a)(l), (c),§ 40-35-
    112(b)(3) (multiple offender second
    degree robbery equivalent triggers
    range II class C felony, carrying
    minimum term of 6 years)
    Texas             5 years                   TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
    § 29.02(a)(2), (b) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is second degree
    felony), § 12.33(a) (second degree
    felony punishable by 2 to 20 years),
    § 12.42(b) (person convicted of
    second degree felony, who has
    previously been convicted of a
    felony, shall be sentenced for a
    felony of the first degree), §
    12.32(a) (first degree felony
    punishable by term of 5 to 99 years
    or life)
    13
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State     Mandatory Minimum for              Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    f-·
    Third Strike Offense
    Utah              5 years                    UTAH CODE ANN.§ 76-6-301(1)(b),
    (3), § 76-3-203(2), § 76-3-
    203.5(1)(c)(i)(BB), (l)(b), (2)(b)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is second degree violent felony,
    punishable by term of 1 to 15 years;
    if defendant is a habitual violent
    offender, the penalty for a second
    degree felony is as if the conviction
    were for a first degree felony; a
    habitual violent offender is a person
    convicted of any "violent" felony
    who has also been convicted of a
    violent felony on any two previous
    occasions; minimum sentence for
    !-----
    first degree felony is 5 years)
    Vermont          N/A ("habitual criminal"   VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, § 608(a), §
    statute triggered only     2507 (second degree robbery
    where there were three     equivalent triggers maximum term
    prior convictions)         of 10 years; § 11 (habitual criminal
    enhanced sentence permitted for
    fourth felony conviction, triggering
    maximum life sentence)
    14
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for                 Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike O!Jense
    Virginia          Life without possibility of   VA. CODE ANN.§ 18.2-58, § 18.2-
    parole until defendant is     288(2) (second degree robbery
    60 (if already served 10      equivalent crime of violence
    years) or 65 (if already      triggers minimum term of 5 years
    served 5 years)               up to life);§ 19.2-297.1(A)(e), (C)
    (third act of violence conviction,
    including second degree robbery
    equivalent, shall be sentenced to life
    without parole, subject to
    exceptions for persons age 60 or
    older)
    Washington        Life without parole           RCW 9A.56.190, 9A.56.210,
    9A.20.021(1)(b) (second degree
    robbery is a class B felony,
    triggering 10 year term or $20,000
    fine or both term and fine);
    9.94A.570, 9.94A.030(32)( o),
    (37)(a)(i), (ii) (persistent offender
    third most serious offense
    conviction triggers sentence of life
    without parole)
    West Virginia     Life                          W.VA. CODER.§ 61-2-12(b)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    triggers term of 5 to 18 years), § 61-
    11-18(c) (third felony offense
    conviction triggers life sentence)
    15
    State v. Witherspoon, No. 88118-9
    (Gordon McCloud, J., Concurrence/Dissent)
    Appendix
    State       Mandatory Minimum for             Applicable Statutes
    Second Degree Robbery
    Equivalent Committed as
    Third Strike Offense
    Wisconsin         No minimum                WIS. STAT.§ 943.32(1)(b), §
    939.50(l)(e), (3)(e) (second degree
    robbery equivalent is class E felony,
    triggering maximum term of 15
    years);§ 973.12, § 939.62(1)(c), (2)
    (person convicted of second degree
    robbery equivalent as second strike
    is a "repeater" and shall have his or
    her sentence increased by not more
    than 6 years)
    Wyoming           10 years                  WYO. STAT. ANN. § 6-2-40l(a)(ii),
    (b) (second degree robbery
    equivalent triggers term not to
    exceed 10 years);§ 6-l-104(a)(xii)
    (second degree robbery equivalent
    is violent felony),§ 6-10-20l(a)(i),
    (ii), (b )(i) (person convicted of a
    "violent felony" who has previously
    been convicted of two other felonies
    is an "habitual criminal," punishable
    by term of 10 to 50 years if he or
    she has only two prior convictions)
    16