## Facts

- Douglas S. McAlpin (age 18) pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery, and second-degree burglary.
- Under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), the standard range for the robbery count was 46–61 months based on his scored offender history.
- The State recommended 61 months, the top of the standard range.
- Presentence materials showed McAlpin’s juvenile record was far more extensive than the portion counted in the offender score, including multiple felony-level juvenile offenses, four commitments to juvenile institutions, and additional felony arrests handled informally.
- The presentence report also described behavioral traits and conduct bearing on dangerousness and rehabilitative prospects, including lack of remorse, longstanding youth drug abuse, and episodes of animal torture.
- The trial court imposed concurrent sentences, including 90 months on the robbery count as an exceptional sentence above the standard range, based primarily on the disparity between the scored history and the documented juvenile record and related conduct.
- McAlpin appealed only the 90-month exceptional sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether a sentencing court may impose an exceptional sentence above the SRA standard range based on juvenile criminal history and related conduct that were not, and could not be, included in the offender score used to compute the standard range.
2. Whether reliance on the full juvenile record and other presentence information concerning dangerousness and character is permitted under the SRA and consistent with due process and sentencing reliability requirements.
3. Whether the extent of the upward departure (from a 61-month maximum standard term to 90 months) was clearly excessive under the SRA’s appellate review framework.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the exceptional sentence.
- The court held the trial court could consider reliable, non-scored juvenile criminal activity and related background information as substantial and compelling reasons for an exceptional sentence when the standard-range score materially understated the offender’s actual criminal history and risk.
- The court concluded the sentencing reasons were supported by the record, legally sufficient to justify departure, and the 90-month term was not clearly excessive.

## Legal Principles

- The SRA’s rules for computing the standard range offender score do not define the outer limit of information a sentencing judge may consider when deciding whether substantial and compelling reasons justify an exceptional sentence.
- A substantial disparity between an offender’s scored criminal history and the offender’s documented, non-scored juvenile history may be a valid aggravating circumstance where the standard range fails to reflect the offender’s actual criminality, dangerousness, or rehabilitative prospects.
- A sentencing court may rely on presentence reports and juvenile-court information if sufficiently reliable and if the defendant has an opportunity to respond to the information used at sentencing.
- On review of an exceptional sentence, appellate courts assess whether (1) the reasons are supported by the record, (2) the reasons legally justify departure, and (3) the sentence is clearly excessive.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an exceptional sentence above the SRA standard range because the defendant’s reliable, documented, non-scored juvenile record and related conduct showed the standard-range offender score materially understated his criminal history and risk, and the degree of upward departure was not clearly excessive.


State v. McAlpin, 740 P.2d 824 (Wash. 1987)