State v. Lewis: Foreign Convictions Excluded From the “Out-of-State” Category Under Washington’s Sentencing Reform Act

Introduction

State v. Lewis, No. 102910-1 (Wash. July 17, 2025), is a landmark Washington Supreme Court decision that reshapes felony sentencing under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA). The petitioner, Matthew Adam Lewis, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of dealing in and possessing child-sexual-abuse images. At sentencing, the trial court counted three prior convictions from South Australia as “out-of-state convictions,” raising Lewis’s offender score from 6 to 9+ and inflating his standard-range sentence to 102 months. Lewis challenged the inclusion of those foreign convictions.

The central statutory question was straightforward yet novel: Does the phrase “out-of-state convictions” in RCW 9.94A.525(3) encompass convictions from foreign nations? The Supreme Court answered “No.” Holding the statutory text ambiguous and finding no dispositive legislative history, the Court invoked the rule of lenity, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for resentencing without the Australian convictions.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court (majority opinion by González, J.) concludes that “out-of-state convictions” is ambiguous because dictionary definitions and other Washington statutes use the phrase inconsistently.
2. With ambiguity unresolved by text, context, or legislative history, the Court applies the rule of lenity, requiring a narrow reading in favor of defendants.
3. Foreign convictions therefore lie outside the offender-score calculus of RCW 9.94A.525(3), though they may still be discussed as part of the broader “criminal history” during a sentencing judge’s discretionary choice of where to sentence within the range.
4. The Court reverses the Court of Appeals and remands Lewis’s case for resentencing.

Concurring & Dissenting Views

• Johnson, J. (concurring) – Agrees with the ultimate result (resentencing) but argues the statute is not ambiguous; standard canons of construction show “out-of-state” refers only to other U.S. states, so lenity should not have been used.
• Stephens, C.J. (dissenting) – Relies on State v. Morley, 134 Wn.2d 588 (1998), which treated court-martial convictions as “out-of-state,” to conclude foreign convictions must be counted. The dissent further contends that comparability analysis already protects due-process concerns and that lenity was misapplied.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1 (2017) – Reaffirmed the SRA’s goal of constraining judicial discretion.
2. State v. Jordan, 180 Wn.2d 456 (2014) – Detailed the comparability test for out-of-state convictions and underscored that courts do not conduct “mini-trials” into a prior conviction’s procedural fairness.
3. State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409 (2007) – Allowed courts to look to admitted or proven underlying facts if the elements of the foreign statute were not legally comparable.
4. State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419 (1989) – Held that foreign convictions can inform sentencing discretion, even if procured under procedures unconstitutional in the U.S., but did not decide whether they count in the offender score.
5. State v. Morley, 134 Wn.2d 588 (1998) – Found court-martial convictions countable. The majority limits Morley to domestic federal tribunals; dissent relies on Morley to include foreign convictions.
6. State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175 (1986) – Established that a defendant bears the burden to show a prior conviction is constitutionally invalid on its face or previously overturned.
7. Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005) – U.S. Supreme Court interpreted a federal firearms statute’s phrase “convicted in any court” not to include foreign courts; cited to illustrate that Congress, like the Washington Legislature, sometimes excludes foreign convictions absent clear language.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Ambiguity – The SRA never defines “out-of-state.” Competing dictionary definitions and divergent statutory usage (e.g., RCW 9.95.270 vs. RCW 28B.15.012) yielded no single plain meaning.
2. Structural Context – RCW 9.94A.525(3) singles out federal convictions in a separate sentence. If “out-of-state” already included all non-Washington convictions, the explicit mention of federal convictions would be superfluous. That favors a narrower, domestic-only reading.
3. Legislative Silence – Neither party unearthed legislative history clarifying whether foreign convictions were intended to be included. The Court refrains from speculating.
4. Rule of Lenity – Because criminal statutes that affect liberty must give fair notice, courts construe ambiguous provisions against the State. Lenity therefore dictates excluding foreign convictions.
5. Due-Process Concerns – International diversity in criminal-procedure safeguards (e.g., coerced confessions) makes unquestioned reliance on foreign convictions risky. The Court doubted comparability analysis could practically police procedural fairness.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

• Sentencing Outcomes: Defendants whose criminal histories include foreign convictions (military expatriates, recent immigrants, international travelers) may receive lower offender scores and shorter standard ranges.
• Judicial Workflow: Trial courts will no longer need to conduct complex foreign-law comparability analyses—saving resources but shifting focus to discretionary range placement.
• Legislative Response: The legislature may amend RCW 9.94A.525 to clarify whether it wants to include foreign convictions and, if so, under what safeguards (e.g., certified procedural-fairness findings).
• Spill-Over Questions: The opinion leaves open whether convictions from U.S. territories or tribal courts fall inside or outside “out-of-state.” That ambiguity may prompt further litigation.
• Negotiation Leverage: Prosecutors may seek exceptional-sentence aggravators based on “unscored foreign criminal history” (RCW 9.94A.535(2)(b)), potentially increasing plea-bargaining stakes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Offender Score

A numerical calculation representing the defendant’s prior felony (and some misdemeanor) convictions. Combined with the offense’s seriousness level, it yields a standard sentencing range.

Criminal History vs. Offender Score

“Criminal history” (RCW 9.94A.030(11)) is a list of all prior convictions anywhere. The “offender score” (RCW 9.94A.525) is a subset of that list that counts numerically toward the guideline range.

Comparability Analysis

Process by which a Washington court decides whether an out-of-state offense is substantially similar in elements (or in admitted/proved facts) to a Washington felony, so that it may be scored.

Rule of Lenity

A canon of construction directing courts to interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of defendants. It protects fair notice and prevents unforeseen penal expansion.

Conclusion

State v. Lewis establishes that, absent explicit legislative language, foreign convictions cannot be treated as “out-of-state convictions” for offender-score purposes under Washington’s SRA. By melding statutory-interpretation tools with the rule of lenity, the Court prioritizes defendant notice and procedural fairness over sentencing uniformity. The decision trims the SRA’s reach, lowers potential sentencing ranges for a narrow but significant class of defendants, and invites the legislature to clarify Washington’s stance toward convictions rendered beyond U.S. borders. Whether other non-Washington jurisdictions—tribal, territorial, or military—will be swept into or left outside the “out-of-state” net remains an open frontier for Washington sentencing law.