Appeals panel considers whether trial court misunderstood its sentencing discretion in State v. Little

Defense counsel told the panel the key sentencing question is whether the trial court understood it could impose an exceptional sentence by running offenses concurrently rather than consecutively, and that the record did not show an explicit trial-court determination addressing that sub-prong of the sentencing analysis.

"The issue is whether the court understood that it could impose an exceptional sentence under 535 by running the sentences concurrently rather than consecutively," Steed said, noting there was no explicit request in the trial court to run sentences concurrently. The prosecutor, Samantha Kenner, countered that the trial court had rejected requested exceptional downward sentences and then pronounced that, absent reasons to depart from the standard range, consecutive sentences were required: "Unless the court finds that there are reasons to depart from the standard range, the court is required to impose a consecutive sentence," she said. The panel discussed case law (McFarland, Mulholland, Graham) where trial courts had expressed limits on discretion, but Kenner argued those record features are absent here.

Steed also asked the court to consider raising the concurrency argument as a fundamental defect on appeal if not preserved below. The panel probed what specific language or record entries would demonstrate a trial-court misunderstanding; argument concluded with the parties asking the court to take the appropriate appellate remedy based on preservation and the record.