Supreme Court ruling allows mental health alternative to override weapon confinement

The Washington Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Thursday confirming that a judge who approves a mental health sentencing alternative may also suspend the mandatory jail time typically associated with a deadly weapon conviction. The decision applies to all superior courts throughout the state.

The opinion in State v. Perrin was released Thursday morning. Justice Steven González authored the decision, which carries the signatures of all nine justices. It upholds a decision made in October 2025 by Division II of the Court of Appeals.

Background of the case

The proceedings originate in Clark County. According to court records, a local man left harassing voicemails for a woman, damaged a neighbor's bicycle, and attacked that neighbor with a sword. Prosecutors filed charges for first-degree assault and additional crimes.

A jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree assault involving a deadly weapon, felony harassment, and third-degree theft.

The defendant requested a mental health sentencing alternative. The presiding judge granted the request, sentencing him to 36 months of community custody while waiving confinement for the weapon enhancement.

Clark County Superior Court Judge Nancy N. Retsinas approved the judgment in September 2023.

The State appealed, asserting the weapon enhancement mandated one year in total confinement. The State lost its appeal in Division II and subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court.

Conflicting statutory mandates

The state legislature established the mental health sentencing alternative in 2021. This measure was one of 47 consensus recommendations put forth by the state's Criminal Sentencing Task Force.

The law states that when a judge determines the alternative is suitable, "the court shall waive imposition of the sentence within the standard range."

Conversely, the statute governing deadly weapons is considerably older. Since the Sentencing Reform Act was enacted in 1995 under the Hard Time for Armed Crime initiative, weapon enhancements have been required in nearly all cases.

That specific statute mandates that "notwithstanding any other provision of law," deadly weapon enhancements are compulsory and must be served in total confinement.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant. Justice González wrote that once a deadly weapon finding is established and the additional time is calculated, the enhancement "becomes part of a person's standard range sentence," citing the court's 2019 decision in State v. Yancey.

Because the mental health statute requires judges to waive standard range sentences, the court determined the weapon enhancement is subject to that waiver.

The justices also dismissed the State's argument regarding the "notwithstanding" clause, stating that this language must be interpreted alongside other legislative statutes.

Rationale for the decision

The opinion extensively details the conditions that prompted legislative action. It references the ongoing Trueblood litigation regarding competency services, including a 2015 federal court determination that jails are "inherently punitive institutions" designed without consideration for the needs of the mentally ill.

The court cited reports from the Office of the Corrections Ombuds concerning overwhelmed and delayed mental health services within prisons. It also noted Disability Rights Washington reports regarding medication access and practices resembling solitary confinement. Justice González wrote that these sources indicate treatment is often unavailable in prison.

The court concluded that the Sentencing Reform Act's stated objectives, which include public safety and reducing recidivism, are not "served by imposing prison time on a person who is seriously mentally ill."

The court further noted that if the statutes were considered ambiguous, the rule of lenity would lead to the same conclusion. This narrower legal principle was the basis used by the appeals court.

The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s determination that two of Perrin’s offenses constituted the same criminal conduct, resulting in a revised offender score. The appellate panel ordered that his score be adjusted, with the possibility of a new sentencing hearing if needed. This particular ruling fell outside the scope of the state Supreme Court’s pending or completed review.

Republish this story

Our stories are available for republication, both digitally and in print, under the following conditions:

  • Acknowledge The Real Olympic Herald and the reporter, and include a hyperlink to the original piece.
  • Minor edits for tone, length, or temporal references are permitted, but core facts and structure should remain intact.
  • For digital republication, embed the canonical URL to ensure proper attribution by search engines.
  • The story may not be sold directly or leveraged primarily for promotional or advertising purposes.

Copy story HTML

For additional information, reach out to our team.