## Facts

- After several days without sleep while using alcohol and methamphetamine, Joshua James Fowler went with friends to a tavern in Kent, Washington.
- At a companion’s prompting, Fowler went to Ken Carroll’s apartment to collect a debt he believed Carroll owed.
- Fowler armed himself with a handgun and knife before entering.
- Fowler struck Carroll with the gun, and Carroll was taken to a bedroom, bound by an accomplice, and threatened and beaten by Fowler.
- Fowler threatened to “cut” Carroll to “teach him a lesson.”
- Carroll’s roommate, Thomas Gochanour, was also bound; Fowler struck him with the flat side of the knife and threatened to cut his throat.
- Fowler and accomplices took property (including videotapes, a cellular phone, a wallet, and money) and fled.
- Fowler later turned himself in and pled guilty to first-degree robbery.
- The standard range was 31–41 months plus a mandatory 60-month firearm enhancement.
- The trial court rejected proposed statutory mitigators but imposed an exceptional downward 15-month base sentence citing: no relevant criminal history, sleep deprivation, isolated aberrational behavior, strong family support, and low-to-moderate reoffense risk.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s nonstatutory mitigating factors constituted “substantial and compelling reasons” permitting an exceptional downward sentence under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act.
2. Whether factors already accounted for in the standard-range calculation (including lack of criminal history) may support a downward departure absent atypical or extreme circumstances.
3. Whether sleep deprivation associated with voluntary drug and alcohol use, claimed aberrational conduct, family support, and favorable recidivism assessments are legally adequate bases for a downward exceptional sentence.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the downward exceptional sentence.
- The Court held the cited nonstatutory factors did not amount to substantial and compelling reasons distinguishing the case from typical first-degree robbery cases.
- The case was remanded for resentencing within the standard range (31–41 months) plus the mandatory 60-month firearm enhancement.

## Legal Principles

- A sentence outside the standard range is permitted only upon substantial and compelling reasons that distinguish the offense or offender from the typical case covered by the standard range.
- Review of an exceptional sentence involves: (1) whether reasons are supported by the record, (2) whether the reasons legally justify departure, and (3) whether the sentence is clearly too lenient or excessive.
- A factor necessarily considered in computing the standard range—such as criminal history reflected in the offender score—generally cannot justify departure unless present in an atypical or extreme way.
- Voluntary intoxication is not a mitigating circumstance under the SRA; relabeling impairment as sleep deprivation tied to voluntary substance use does not create a legally valid mitigator.
- “Aberrational behavior” does not justify leniency where the record shows deliberate, weapon-based threats and violence consistent with the seriousness of the charged offense.
- Family support and generalized predictions of low recidivism are common offender characteristics and typically do not provide substantial and compelling grounds for a downward exceptional sentence.

## Conclusion

The court required resentencing within the standard range because the trial court’s reliance on a clean record, sleep deprivation linked to voluntary intoxication, claimed aberrational conduct, family support, and recidivism assessments did not legally distinguish the case from ordinary first-degree robbery prosecutions under the Sentencing Reform Act.


State v. Fowler, 145 Wn. 2d 400, 38 P.3d 335 (Wash. 2002)