In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Marvin Lofi Leo 2026 LEXIS 491 (Wash. 2026)

The Washington Court of Appeals held that Leo suffered substantial prejudicial error when the trial court only considered his age for his murder convictions in his Miller hearing and did not consider his age for the remaining convictions and therefore remanded his case for resentencing.

The court stated in relevant part: “We conclude that Leo has proven actual and substantial prejudice because the trial court made comments suggesting that if it knew it could have adjusted Leo’s sentences on his assaults and associated firearm enhancements, it would have done so. When ruling on Leo’s new sentence, the trial court stated that Leo “should have a chance to get out at some point in his life.” VRP (Dec. 5, 2016) at 39. The trial court also indicated in its conclusions of law that, “to a significant degree, the defendant’s youth was a significant factor in the offense and . . . his maturation since that time supports a sentence below the standard range.” CP at 447. The superior court resentenced Leo prior to the release of the Gilbert and Carter opinions, so the trial court was presumably unaware that it possessed the discretion to adjust Leo’s sentence for the assault convictions. If the trial court knew that it had the discretion to resentence Leo on all of his convictions, and wanted him to “get out at some point in his life,” it likely would have imposed a sentence less than 66 years. VRP (Dec. 5, 2016) at 39.”