In the Matter of the Postsentence Review of: Christopher Mark Blystone

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Postsentence Review
of:
CHRISTOPHER MARK BLYSTONE.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 39144-2-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitioned for
postsentence review of Christopher Blystone’s amended sentence. It argues the
community custody portion of Blystone’s sentence is unlawful. Blystone and the State
agree. Our Supreme Court recently decided this issue in DOC’s favor. In accordance
with State v. Carter, 3 Wn.3d 198, 548 P.3d 935 (2024), we grant DOC’s petition.
FACTS
Christopher Blystone killed a pharmacy employee, Steven Jay Foster, in the
course of a kidnapping and robbery on June 4, 1986. Blystone was 18 years old at the
time.
FILED
NOVEMBER 26, 2024
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 39144-2-III
Postsentence Review of Blystone
2
On March 16, 1988, Blystone pleaded guilty to aggravated first degree murder.
At the time, aggravated first degree murder was punishable by death unless there were
sufficient mitigating circumstances, in which case the punishment was life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole or release (LWOP). Former RCW 10.95.030 (1981).
Blystone presented mitigating evidence of his youthfulness, his “lack of significant
criminal record,” and his “difficult childhood, family problems, drug and alcohol
problems, and physical problems.” Postsentence Pet., Ex. 1, App. D-2. In light of these
mitigating circumstances, the court imposed an LWOP sentence, as was mandated by
statute.
In 2021, our Supreme Court decided In re Personal Restraint of Monschke,
197 Wn.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021), which held that mandatory LWOP sentences were
unconstitutionally cruel as applied to 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old defendants. The superior
court held a resentencing hearing for Blystone, and after considering arguments of
counsel, imposed a determinate sentence of 40 years plus 3 years of community custody.
Soon after, DOC contacted the court and the attorneys because it had concluded
that Blystone’s term of community custody was not authorized. DOC also gave Blystone
early release credit for one-third of his 40-year sentence, resulting in a release date of
July 16, 2014. Accordingly, DOC began preparing for Blystone’s release, putting his
planned release date at September 23, 2022.

No. 39144-2-III
Postsentence Review of Blystone
3
When the trial court did not resolve the community custody issue, DOC filed this
postsentence petition arguing that Blystone’s community custody term is unlawful.
Blystone agreed with DOC. The State also agreed with DOC, and further argued that the
trial court lacked authority to sentence Blystone to a determinate sentence.
In June 2023, this court stayed DOC’s petition pending resolution of two
analogous cases before the Washington Supreme Court. In one of those cases, as in
Blystone’s case, a youthful offender sentenced to life without parole for aggravated first
degree murder received a determinate sentence along with community custody. Carter,
3 Wn.3d at 202, 208.
In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled on both cases,1 concluding that trial courts
resentencing youthful offenders convicted of aggravated first degree murder could
impose determinate sentences but could not impose community custody. Id. at 230.
As a result, the State withdrew its determinate sentence argument.
ANALYSIS
DOC, Blystone, and the State agree that remand is required for the trial court to
strike Blystone’s three-year term of community custody. Bound by Carter, we agree.
1 The court consolidated the two cases into State v. Carter.

No. 39144-2-III
Postsentence Review of Blystone
Petition granted.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
l,.. .... ,..__,.Q,...,._..,1 ' ( 	~Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. 	. 	·
WE CONCUR:
Staab, J. 	Cooney, J.
4