State Of Washington, Respondent V. Stephen Demetrius Boone, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59116-2-II
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STEPHEN DEMETRIUS BOONE,
Appellant.
PRICE, J. — In 2021, this court remanded Stephen D. Boone’s case to the superior court for
resentencing. But based on subsequent case law, the superior court struck Boone’s resentencing.
Boone appeals.
We recognize that under the current case law, Boone would not likely be entitled to the
relief he was granted in 2021, but the superior court’s authority following remand is determined
by the scope of this court’s decision. Because we explicitly granted Boone relief and remanded
for resentencing, the superior court did not have authority to refuse to resentence Boone.
Accordingly, we reverse the superior court and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
In 2005, Boone was found guilty of first degree murder, four counts of first degree robbery,
attempted first degree kidnapping, first degree kidnapping, attempted first degree robbery, and
second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. All of the counts included firearm sentencing
enhancements except the second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. On November 18, 2005,
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 6, 2025

No. 59116-2-II
2
the superior court sentenced Boone to a total term of confinement of 932.25 months. Boone was
16 years old at the time the offenses were committed.
Between 2018 and 2019, based on our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Houston-
Sconiers,1 Boone filed several personal restraint petitions, arguing that he was entitled to be
resentenced to account for his youth at the time of his offenses. In re Pers. Restraint of Boone,
No. 51593-8-II consol. with No. 54227-7-II, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. May 18, 2021)
(unpublished);2 Pers. Restraint Pet., In re Pers. Restraint of Boone, No. 51593-8-II (Mar. 5, 2018);
Pers. Restraint Pet., In re Pers. Restraint of Boone, No. 54227-7-II (Nov. 15, 2019). In 2021,
following two additional opinions, In re Personal Restraint of Ali3 and In re Personal Restraint of
Domingo-Cornelio,4 the State conceded that Boone was entitled to be resentenced. Boone, slip
op. at 2. Based on the State’s concession, this court granted Boone’s petitions and remanded
Boone’s judgment and sentence to the superior court for resentencing. Boone, slip op. at 2.
Two years later, in 2023, Boone had yet to be resentenced.5 But based on intervening law
from our Supreme Court, the State filed a motion to strike Boone’s resentencing, arguing that
Boone was no longer eligible for this relief. The superior court agreed with the State and found
that there had been a significant change in the law regarding when juveniles sentenced as adults
1 State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 391 P.3d 409 (2017).
2 https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2051593-8-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf
3 In re Pers. Restraint of Ali, 196 Wn.2d 220, 474 P.3d 507 (2020).
4 In re Pers. Restraint of Domingo-Cornelio, 196 Wn.2d 255, 474 P.3d 524 (2020).
5 It is unclear from the record why Boone had not been resentenced well before 2023.

No. 59116-2-II
3
were entitled to resentencing. Thus, the superior court granted the State’s motion to strike the
resentencing hearing.
Boone appeals.
ANALYSIS
Boone argues that the superior court erred because the law of the case doctrine precludes
the superior court from revisiting this court’s opinion that ordered resentencing. The State
responds by contending that the superior court had authority to strike the resentencing hearing
based on intervening case law because the law of the case doctrine does not apply to superior
courts. We disagree with both Boone and the State.
The issue here is straightforward—the scope of the superior court’s authority on remand.
“The trial court’s discretion to resentence on remand is limited by the scope of the appellate court’s
mandate.” State v. Kilgore, 167 Wn.2d 28, 42, 216 P.3d 393 (2009). Appellate court decisions
rarely address every issue that must be decided by the superior court on remand. State v. Schwab,
134 Wn. App. 635, 645, 141 P.3d 658 (2006), aff’d, 163 Wn.2d 664 (2008). Therefore, in the
absence of specific directives from the appellate court, the superior court is expected “to exercise
its authority to decide any issue necessary to resolve the case on remand.” Id. However,
“[s]uperior courts must strictly comply with directives from an appellate court which leave no
discretion to the lower court.” Id.
Applying these principles to the procedural posture of this case, our directive to the superior
court left it no discretion. The superior court was required to comply with our directive and hold
a resentencing hearing.

No. 59116-2-II
4
Because the superior court had no discretion on whether to resentence Boone, the
intervening case law relied on by the State was not relevant. The intervening case law pertained
to procedural issues related to obtaining resentencing in the first place as relief in a collateral attack
to a sentence. See In re Pers. Restraint of Forcha-Williams, 200 Wn.2d 581, 599, 520 P.3d 939
(2022) (establishing a Houston-Sconiers error is not per se prejudicial and holding a petitioner
must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice in order to obtain relief in a personal restraint
petition); In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 200 Wn.2d 622, 630-31, 520 P.3d 933 (2022)
(clarifying that Houston-Sconiers articulated both a substantive and a procedural rule and only the
substantive rule applies retroactively for the purposes of the statutory exception to the one-year
time bar for collateral attacks); In re Pers. Restraint of Carrasco, 1 Wn.3d 224, 230-31, 525 P.3d
196 (2023) (holding that statute providing possibility of early release was an adequate remedy for
substantive violation of Houston-Sconiers and therefore, RAP 16.4(d) precluded relief through a
personal restraint petition); In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton, 1 Wn.3d 317, 324, 525 P.3d 156 (2023)
(same). All four cases—Forcha-Williams, Williams, Carrasco, and Hinton—address procedural
issues unique to the threshold decision of whether to grant a personal restraint petition or, perhaps,
a CrR 7.8 motion (a form of collateral attack filed in the superior court). None of these procedural
issues were before the superior court.
To be clear, the superior court will still enjoy broad discretion to decide issues during the
resentencing hearing, such as calculation of offender scores, the type and appropriate length of
sentence, community custody conditions, etc. But the superior court did not have the discretion to

No. 59116-2-II
5
revisit whether Boone was procedurally entitled to the relief ordered by this court. That horse left
the barn in 2021.6
CONCLUSION
Because the superior court acted outside of the scope of its authority on remand by failing
to follow a directive of this court, we reverse the superior court’s order striking Boone’s
resentencing.
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:
VELJACIC, A.C.J.
CHE, J.
6 As we have stated, we recognize that if Boone filed his personal restraint petitions today, it is
unlikely that we would grant his petitions and order resentencing. And we appreciate that
resentencings, especially in serious cases such as this one, can be difficult on all participants,
including family members, witnesses, and victims. It is clear that the superior court was inclined
to undertake a pragmatic application of this intervening law to avoid what it considered to be an
erroneous resentencing. These practical considerations, however, do not provide a basis to exceed
the scope of this court’s directives.