State Of Washington, V. Dwayne Russell Satterfield

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

June 18, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 57866-2-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION DWAYNE RUSSELL SATTERFIELD,

Appellant.

PRICE, J. — In 1991, Dwayne R. Satterfield was sentenced to life in prison without the

possibility of release (LWOP) for aggravated first degree murder. Following our Supreme Court’s

2021 decision in In re Personal Restraint of Monschke1, Satterfield was resentenced to life with

the possibility of release.

Satterfield appeals, arguing this current sentence is unconstitutional and requests that we

reverse and remand for the sentencing court to correct his sentence.

Last month, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Carter, No. 101777-4 (Wash.

May 23, 2024), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1017774.pdf, which now makes it clear

that Satterfield’s current sentence is unauthorized. We therefore reverse Satterfield’s sentence and

remand for resentencing consistent with Carter.

1 197 Wn.2d 305, 325-26, 482 P.3d 276 (2021) (plurality opinion). No. 57866-2-II

FACTS

Satterfield was convicted of aggravated first degree murder for a fatal shooting he

committed when he was 18 years old. Satterfield was sentenced to life in prison without the

possibility of release, as then required by former RCW 10.95.030 (1989), the sentencing statute

for aggravated first degree murder.

In 2021, our Supreme Court determined that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without

the possibility of release was unconstitutional for defendants under 21 years old who were

convicted of aggravated first degree murder. In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305,

325-26, 482 P.3d 276 (2021) (plurality opinion). The Supreme Court reasoned that there was no

meaningful neurological difference between many 17-year-olds and 19- to 20-year-olds and

explained that “sentencing courts must have discretion to take the mitigating qualities of youth . . .

into account for defendants younger and older than 18.” Id. at 326.

Following Monschke, Satterfield received a resentencing hearing. The sentencing court

determined that the mitigating qualities of youth applied to Satterfield and, imposing what it

believed was consistent with Monschke, sentenced Satterfield to life with the possibility of parole

but with no minimum term.

Satterfield appeals his sentence.

ANALYSIS

Satterfield asks this court to remand for another resentencing, arguing that his new sentence

of life with the possibility of parole with no minimum term is unconstitutional and offers an

“illusory promise of parole.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. Following Carter, we agree that Satterfield’s

sentence is improper and remand for resentencing.

2 No. 57866-2-II

In Carter, two defendants, Carter and Reite, who were both under the age of 21 when they

committed aggravated first degree murder, had been sentenced to life without the possibility of

release. Carter, slip op. at 5. Following Monschke, both defendants moved for resentencing and

were resentenced to determinate terms. Carter, slip op. at 6, 9-10, 12.

The State appealed Carter’s and Reite’s sentences. Id. at 12-13. The State argued that the

only possible sentence post-Monschke that was consistent with the aggravated first degree murder

sentencing statute, RCW 10.95.030, was life with the possibility of parole. Id. at 16. The State

contended RCW 10.95.030 should be read as,

[A]ny person convicted of the crime of aggravated first degree murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The State further argued that even if such a sentence would

not provide an effective opportunity for release for the defendant, it was up to the legislature to

fashion a remedy. Id. at 17.

Carter and Reite argued that RCW 10.95.030 should be modified to essentially permit any

type of sentence, with life without parole as only one option. Id. at 16-17. The defendants

proposed the following reading of the statute:

Any person convicted of the crime of aggravated first degree murder shall [may] be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our Supreme Court ultimately rejected the State’s position. Id. at 18-20. The court

explained that the State’s reading of the statute “would effectively eliminate any useful discretion”

at the trial court and “would [result in] no guidance as to when a person would become eligible for

parole or the authority that would govern,” resulting in “no functional alternative . . . [to life

3 No. 57866-2-II

without parole].” Id. at 18-19. The Supreme Court also recognized that the Indeterminate

Sentence Review Board does not have authority to administer parole and supervise those under

community custody or parole for aggravated first degree murder, which would in turn would make

life without parole “effectively mandatory.” Id. at 19.

The Supreme Court therefore held that an available sentence could be a determinate term

of any length (which could still be reviewed for an abuse of discretion) or life without the

possibility of parole, at the sentencing court’s discretion. Id. at 20. But a sentence of life with the

possibility of parole was not authorized. Id. at 18-20, 22-24.

Following Carter, the State moved in this case for accelerated consideration of Satterfield’s

appeal. The State concedes that Satterfield’s current sentence of life with the possibility of parole

is unauthorized. Thus, the State asks us to reverse and remand for resentencing, and to

immediately issue a mandate for completion of this case. Regarding its request for an immediate

mandate, the State commits to not moving for reconsideration or filing a petition for review if we

reverse Satterfield’s current sentence.

We agree that Carter compels the conclusion that Satterfield’s sentence is unauthorized.

We therefore reverse Satterfield’s sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with Carter.

And because the State has committed to not moving for reconsideration or filing a petition for

review, our clerk of court shall issue the mandate in this case immediately upon filing of this

decision. See RAP 12.5(b).

4 No. 57866-2-II

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:

MAXA, P.J.

CHE, J.