State of Washington, Respondent v. D'anthony L. Williams, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58632-1-II
Respondent,
v.
D’ANTHONY LESLIE WILLIAMS,
Appellant.
In the Matter of the Postsentence Review of: No. 59102-2-II
D’ANTHONY LESLIE WILLIAMS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
PRICE, J. – D’Anthony L. Williams appeals the sentence imposed following his sentence
for aggravated first degree murder committed when he was 19 years old. Separately, the
Department of Corrections (DOC) has filed a petition for post-sentence review, arguing that the
sentence imposed by the superior court was not authorized by law. The two cases were
consolidated.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
February 4, 2025

No. 58632-1-II
(Consolidated with No. 59102-2-II)
2
Based on a recent case from our Supreme Court, State v. Carter,1 the sentence imposed by
the superior court was not authorized by law. Accordingly, we remand to the superior court for
resentencing.2
FACTS
In November 2020, a jury found Williams guilty of multiple crimes including aggravated
first degree murder with a firearm sentencing enhancement. Williams was 19 years old at the time
of the murder. State v. Williams, No. 55269-8-II, slip op. at 2 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug.2, 2022)
(unpublished).3 The trial court sentenced Williams to life without the possibility of parole.
On appeal, this court affirmed most of Williams’ convictions. Williams, slip op. at 14.
However, based on our Supreme Court’s opinion in Monschke,4 this court reversed Williams’
aggravated first degree murder sentence and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 13-14.
Following a resentencing hearing, the superior court imposed an indeterminate sentence
with a minimum term of 50 years and a maximum term of life for the aggravated first degree
murder.
1 3 Wn.3d 198, 548 P.3d 935 (2024).
2 Williams raises several challenges to his sentence including that the superior court failed to
properly consider the mitigating factors of youthfulness and that his constitutional right to be free
from restraint was violated. Because remand for resentencing is necessary, we do not address
Williams additional challenges to his sentence.
3 https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2055269-8-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf.
4 In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021).

No. 58632-1-II
(Consolidated with No. 59102-2-II)
3
ANALYSIS
Williams appeals the sentence imposed for aggravated first degree murder. DOC is also
petitioning for review of the sentence arguing that an indeterminate sentence is not authorized in
this case. The State agrees that an indeterminate sentence is not a statutorily authorized sentence.
We agree.
RCW 10.95.030(1) provides, “[A]ny person convicted of the crime of aggravated first
degree murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of release or parole.” In
Monschke, our supreme court held that this statute was unconstitutional as applied to 18-, 19-, and
20-year-old offenders because it made life without parole sentences mandatory without
considering the mitigating factors of youth. 197 Wn.2d at 326.
Recently, in State v. Carter, our Supreme Court addressed what sentence is currently
authorized under RCW 10.95.030 for 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old offenders. See 3 Wn.3d at 212.
Ultimately, our Supreme Court determined that the mandatory language in RCW 10.95.030 must
be severed and, as a result, the authorized sentence for 18-, 19-, or 20-year-olds convicted of
aggravated first degree murder is life without parole or “anything less” than life without parole.
Id. at 219. In other words, our Supreme Court has held that the constitutional, statutorily
authorized aggravated first degree murder sentence for 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old offenders is a
determinate sentence within the range of zero months to life without the possibility of release. Id.
at 216.
Here, the superior court imposed an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of
50 years and a maximum term of life. But based on our Supreme Court’s analysis and holding in

No. 58632-1-II
(Consolidated with No. 59102-2-II)
4
Carter, an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term and a maximum term is not currently
authorized under RCW 10.95.030. Because the superior court imposed a sentence that was not
authorized by statute, we reverse Williams’ sentence for aggravated first degree murder and
remand for resentencing.5
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
PRICE, J.
We concur:
VELJACIC, A.C.J.
MAXA, J.
5 We do not take the decision to remand for resentencing lightly. We recognize that sentencing
hearings, like this one, can be lengthy and demanding hearings that are difficult on the participants
and family members of those involved. Further, multiple resentencing hearings can deprive the
victim’s family of a sense of finality. Nevertheless, in situations like this one, when the sentencing
court was in the unfortunate position of making its sentencing decision without the benefit of later-
decided case law, resentencing is necessary to ensure a sentence that is authorized by law.