## Facts

- Kenneth D. Oxborrow operated Wheatland Investment Company, soliciting funds by promising returns of about 2% per week and claiming investments would be placed in commodities and futures markets.
- The operation functioned as a pyramid scheme: earlier investors were paid with funds from later investors; at most about 10% of investor money was actually invested.
- Oxborrow obtained over $58 million, returned about $45 million, and used large amounts for personal luxury purchases.
- The scheme affected roughly 900 to 1,200 investors across numerous counties and multiple states; most investors lost money, and over 500 lost their entire investments.
- Oxborrow disregarded a cease-and-desist order prohibiting sale of unregistered securities.
- He pleaded guilty to first-degree theft and willful violation of the cease-and-desist order.
- Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), his standard ranges were low due to no criminal history, but each offense carried a 10-year statutory maximum.
- The trial court imposed exceptional, consecutive sentences: 10 years for theft and 5 years for the cease-and-desist violation (15 years total), based on findings that the crimes constituted a major economic offense.

## Issues

1. Under the SRA, what standard governs appellate review of an exceptional sentence and when may it be reversed as clearly excessive or too lenient?
2. Whether the SRA authorizes consecutive exceptional sentences totaling 15 years for these offenses.
3. Whether the exceptional sentences were clearly excessive or based on impermissible information at sentencing.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the exceptional, consecutive sentences.
- An exceptional sentence will be reversed only if the trial court’s reasons are legally inadequate or the sentence is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.
- The SRA permits consecutive exceptional sentences up to the statutory maximum for each offense when supported by substantial and compelling reasons.
- The record supported the trial court’s major-economic-offense findings (multiple victims, extraordinary monetary loss, sophistication and planning, and abuse of trust/personal gain).
- The sentencing court relied on permissible information, and the total 15-year term was not clearly excessive given the scope and impact of the fraud.

## Legal Principles

- Under the SRA, appellate review of an exceptional sentence is limited; reversal is proper only for legally inadequate reasons or a sentence that is clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.
- A sentencing court may impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range when substantial and compelling reasons are found and supported by the record.
- A “major economic offense” aggravator may be established by factors such as numerous victims, extraordinary loss amounts, sophisticated planning, and abuse of a position of trust for personal gain.
- The SRA allows consecutive exceptional sentences, subject to statutory maximums per count, when justified by the sentencing court’s stated reasons.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a 15-year total exceptional sentence for a large-scale investment fraud, holding that consecutive exceptional sentences are authorized under the SRA when supported by substantial and compelling reasons, and that such sentences are overturned only if the sentencing reasons are legally inadequate or the term is clearly excessive or too lenient.


State v. Oxborrow, 106 Wash. 2d 525 (Wash. 1986)