State Of Washington, Respondent V. Julien Broussard, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 50335-2-II
Respondent,
v.
JULIEN BROUSSARD, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, J. — Julien Broussard appeals his exceptional sentence, arguing that the “free crimes”
aggravator, RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c), does not support an exceptional sentence if only one crime will
go unpunished. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
Broussard pleaded guilty to first degree promoting prostitution and second degree assault.
The sentencing court found that the second degree assault would go unpunished because of
Broussard’s high offender score, which was 12. Based on its finding, the sentencing court imposed
an exceptional sentence by imposing consecutive sentences. Broussard appeals his exceptional
sentence.1
1 In his Statement of Additional Grounds for Review, RAP 10.10, Broussard also argues that the
sentencing court may not impose an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) without a
finding by a jury. Broussard’s argument has already been considered and rejected by our Supreme
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
March 26, 2019

No. 50335-2-II
2
ANALYSIS
Broussard argues that the sentencing court did not have the authority to impose an
exceptional sentence because the “free crimes” aggravator does not allow an exceptional sentence
if only one crime will go unpunished. We disagree.
A defendant’s offender score is calculated based on current and prior convictions. RCW
9.94A.525(1). The standard sentencing ranges in the Sentencing Reform Act, chapter 9.94A
RCW, do not account for offender scores in excess of nine. RCW 9.94A.510; State v. France, 176
Wn. App. 463, 468, 308 P.3d 812 (2013), review denied, 179 Wn.2d 1015 (2014). Therefore,
“[w]here a defendant has multiple current offenses that result in an offender score greater than
nine, further increases in the offender score do not increase the standard sentence range.” Id.
RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) allows a sentencing court to impose an exceptional sentence when
the “defendant has committed multiple current offenses and the defendant’s high offender score
results in some of the current offenses going unpunished.” Imposing consecutive sentences is an
exceptional sentence. RCW 9.94A.535. We review the sentencing court’s authority to impose an
exceptional sentence de novo. France, 176 Wn. App. at 469.
In State v. Smith, ___ Wn. App. 2d ___, 433 P. 3d 821, 823-24 (2019), we held that the
free crimes aggaravtor allows a sentencing court to impose an exceptional sentence when one
crime will go unpunished. Therefore, we reject Broussard’s arguments. Under Smith, the
sentencing court properly imposed an exceptional sentence based on the “free crimes” aggravator.
Court. State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 566-69, 192 P.3d 345 (2008). Accordingly, we do not
address it any further.

No. 50335-2-II
3
We affirm.
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.
Lee, J.
We concur:
Maxa, C.J.
Sutton, J.