Bench probes whether Houston-Sconiers and sentencing discretion cure juvenile felony-murder concerns

Both sides discussed whether the judicial authority to depart below a standard range (described repeatedly as a protection in Washington law) suffices to address constitutional concerns about juvenile culpability. The bench queried whether Houston-Sconiers already accounts for juvenile differences and whether that decision eliminates the need for a categorical bar against charging juveniles under felony murder.

Colin Patrick said Houston-Sconiers allows for sentencing deviation but does not change the underlying starting point set by a felony-murder conviction; he argued that leaving the conviction in place leaves juveniles subject to an improper baseline. "The proper way in which they should be given Houston Sconyers in that protection is by having a standard range that's properly set," Patrick told the court.

The bench examined whether the ultimate sentence imposed (here described in argument as roughly 196 months) would make any error harmless, and counseled the parties through whether prejudice analysis or structural error frameworks applied. The exchange focused on when sentencing flexibility is sufficient and when the conviction itself must be reconsidered to protect juvenile defendants.