Shooter in Pierce County murder case wins resentencing. Here’s what we know
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- State Supreme Court orders new sentencing hearing, finds trial court abused discretion.
- Court requires consideration of youthfulness for man convicted in 2008 murder.
- Resentencing may yield sentence below standard range; $7,097 restitution upheld.
A man who has spent nearly two decades in prison for a Lakewood murder is entitled to a new sentencing hearing where he could receive a term of incarceration below the standard range, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
James LaRon Ellis was 18 years old in March 2008 when he and two other teenagers entered 20-year-old Javon Holden’s apartment demanding drugs and money. Ellis fatally shot Holden in the head and later received 25 years in prison.
Ellis, now 36, saw 11 months shaved off that punishment in 2021 when he was resentenced following the state Supreme Court’s Blake decision, which found that the state’s simple drug-possession law was unconstitutional and made hundreds of thousands of past misdemeanor and felony convictions eligible to be wiped from a person’s criminal record.
In that sentencing hearing before Pierce County Superior Court Judge Philip Sorensen, Ellis explicitly asked the judge to use his discretion and consider Ellis’ youthfulness at the time of the crime. Ellis said he was apologetic and remorseful for what he’d done, but that he could better repay his dept to society if he were not in prison.
“I got to prison at 19 years old,” Ellis told Sorensen, according to the state Supreme Court. “I’ve definitely accomplished a lot of education, training, and things of that nature, and I’ve definitely grown into something better than I would have been still in that toxic environment that I come from. I have two boys that I’m definitely involved with. I call them all the time.”
Although Sorensen gave Ellis the new sentence his defense attorney requested, he declined to consider Ellis’ youth.
“The other issue is something that you have the ability to address in a different format than what we are doing today, Mr. Ellis,” Sorensen said.
Writing for the majority of the state Supreme Court justices in a 5-4 decision, Justice Steven C. González said that denial amounted to an abuse of the court’s discretion.
“While a judge is not always required to impose a lesser sentence due to the mitigating qualities of youthfulness, a judge who declines to consider youthfulness when requested cannot be said to have meaningfully exercised their discretion,” González wrote in the unpublished opinion.
Kate Huber, Ellis’ attorney from the Washington Appellate Project, told The News Tribune the state Supreme Court had correctly recognized that the Blake decision entitles people with unconstitutional drug convictions to a full resentencing and consideration of all relevant circumstances.
“Mr. Ellis is now in his mid-30s, and, through both the passage of time and his own hard work, is a different person than he was half his lifetime ago,” Huber said in a written statement.
Ellis is incarcerated at the Olympic Corrections Center, 27 miles southeast of Forks. There, Huber said, he’s been working to support crews with the Department of Natural resources, including firefighting efforts, woods clearing and tree planting.
“He is working hard to prepare for his eventual reentry and return to his family,” Huber said.
Huber was disappointed that the state Supreme Court held that the amount of restitution Ellis had been ordered to pay, $7,097.32 not including interest, was not constitutionally excessive. That amount was to be paid to the Crime Victims Compensation fund, jointly and severally with his two co-defendants, and it included a portion of the funeral expenses for Holden.
“While we are disappointed the Supreme Court did not go further to address the barriers to reentry posed by large financial burdens, we are thankful Mr. Ellis will receive the sentencing he deserves,” Huber said.
Adam Faber, a spokesperson for the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said prosecutors would be seeking a sentence within the standard range. According to court records, the standard sentencing range Eillis will face is 17 years, 10 months to 26 years, two months
A date for the resentencing hearing has not yet been set.
Why do courts have to consider youthfulness?
Referencing case law, González explained in his opinion that when a trial court’s discretion to resentence isn’t limited by an appellate court’s mandate, the judge has authority to consider issues and evidence that were not the subject of earlier proceedings. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 directs courts to consider all relevant evidence and argument during sentencing and resentencing.
A 2015 state Supreme Court case, State v. O’Dell, found that when a defendant is 18 years old at the time of a crime, a sentencing judge abuses their discretion when they fail to consider youthfulness when requested.
That case and more recent state Supreme Court rulings have led to a number of new sentencing hearings where courts are required to consider how each defendant’s culpability might be lessened by aspects of youth, which would support an exceptional sentence below the standard range.
Some factors include immaturity and impulsiveness, the nature of the defendant’s surrounding environment and family circumstances, as well as peer pressure and the potential for rehabilitation.
4 justices offer dissenting opinions
The justices who broke from the majority in Ellis’ case offered two dissenting opinions, with two signing on to the one authored by Justice Charles W. Johnson. Justice Mary I. Yu wrote her own.
Johnson explained that youthfulness on its own is not a sufficient mitigating factor to support a lower sentence. Ellis has the burden to present evidence about what aspects of his youthfulness made him less culpable, and he did not present an argument about that at his resentencing hearing. Because of that, Johnson said he believed the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Also important to Johnson was the fact that Ellis received the sentence his defense attorney had argued for.
Yu concurred with that aspect of Johnson’s opinion. She added that it is not known what evidence or issues might have come up had Sorensen voluntarily inquired about Ellis’ youthfulness. It wasn’t an error for the judge not to do this, Yu explained, because that kind of inquiry risks improperly undermining defense counsel, who she said is presumed competent.
In the majority opinion, González disagreed with the idea that Sorensen didn’t abuse his discretion because Ellis got the sentence his attorney asked for.
González said defense counsel’s failure to appreciate that the scope of the resentencing hearing went beyond Blake relief doesn’t render the judge’s error harmless. In a footnote, González said counsel should always consult with their clients in preparing for resentencing, but nonetheless defense counsel might have strategic reasons to not disclose certain information about a defendant’s life in open court.
Yu said she agreed with González that defense counsel should always consult with their clients, but she said there is no indication in the record that Ellis’ attorney failed to do so, and Ellis had not asserted that his counsel was ineffective.
“Appellate courts should not assume facts not in evidence to justify a desired result,” Yu wrote. “Because the resentencing court imposed precisely the sentence Ellis requested through counsel, there is no procedural error that requires reversal. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.”
