In Re the Post Sentence Review of Dwayne Russell Satterfield

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Postsentence Review of: No. 58102-7-II
DWAYNE RUSSELL SATTERFIELD, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent.
PRICE, J. — The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitions for review of Dwayne R.
Satterfield’s sentence for aggravated first degree murder, arguing Satterfield’s sentence of life with
the possibility of release is not authorized by statute. DOC chose to bring its petition under the
Sentencing Reform Act of 19811 (SRA). The State moves to dismiss DOC’s petition, arguing that
the SRA does not authorize DOC’s petition for review of Satterfield’s non-SRA sentence.
We dismiss DOC’s petition as moot because we have reversed Satterfield’s sentence and
remanded for resentencing in a related direct appeal and we can therefore not offer effective relief
to DOC. We do not further consider the State’s motion to dismiss.
FACTS AND ANALYSIS
In 1991, Satterfield was convicted of aggravated first degree murder for a fatal shooting
Satterfield committed when he was 18 years old, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment
without the possibility of release. But in 2021, our Supreme Court determined that for defendants
under 21 years old who were convicted of aggravated first degree murder, a mandatory sentence
1 Chapter 9.94A RCW.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
June 25, 2024

No. 58102-7-II
2
of life imprisonment without the possibility of release was unconstitutional. In re Pers. Restraint
of Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305, 325-26, 482 P.3d 276 (2021) (plurality opinion).
Following Monschke, Satterfield moved for resentencing and received a sentence of life
imprisonment with the possibility of release. Satterfield was thereafter assigned to DOC’s custody.
DOC filed a petition for us to review Satterfield’s sentence pursuant RCW 9.94A.585(7), asserting
that Satterfield’s sentence was unworkable.
Meanwhile, Satterfield also filed a direct appeal challenging his sentence. See
State v. Satterfield, No. 57866-2-II, slip op. at 2 (Wash. Ct. App. June 18, 2024),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2057866-2-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf. In
that direct appeal, we recently reversed the sentence DOC now challenges and remanded for
Satterfield to be resentenced again. Id. at 4.
A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief. Harbor Lands LP v. City
of Blaine, 146 Wn. App. 589, 592, 191 P.3d 1282 (2008). Here, DOC requests a review of
Satterfield’s sentence and for us to remand for correction of the sentence. However, because we
have already reversed and remanded Satterfield’s sentence in his direct appeal, no sentence
remains for us to review or reverse. Because we cannot offer DOC effective relief, we dismiss
DOC’s petition as moot.2
2 With DOC’s petition being moot, we do not further consider the State’s motion to dismiss DOC’s
petition.

No. 58102-7-II
3
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
PRICE, J.
We concur:
MAXA, P.J.
CHE, J.