This bill amends RCW 9.94A.535 to change how exceptional sentences (sentences outside the standard range) are imposed and reviewed. It reaffirms that a court may impose an exceptional sentence only upon substantial and compelling reasons, requires written findings of fact and conclusions of law when doing so, and provides that any sentence outside the standard range must be determinate and is subject to review under RCW 9.94A.585(4). It also treats departures from the consecutive/concurrent rules in RCW 9.94A.589(1)–(2) as exceptional sentences subject to appeal, and states that below-range exceptional sentences require mitigating circumstances proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The bill specifies procedures and substantive factors for aggravated and mitigated exceptional sentences. It provides an exclusive list of aggravating circumstances to be found using the procedures in RCW 9.94A.537, and allows the trial court in certain listed situations to impose an aggravated exceptional sentence without a jury finding of fact (including by stipulation of both defendant and the state). Among the aggravating circumstances shown in the provided text are a listed factor stating the offense resulted in the pregnancy of a victim of rape (the source text shows editorial markup around the word “child,” so the final wording is unclear), and several additional circumstances including: the offense was intentionally committed because the defendant perceived the victim to be homeless (homelessness defined in RCW 9.94A.030); a felony against persons occurring in a courtroom, jury room, judge’s chamber, or immediately adjacent waiting areas during judicial use with signage posted under RCW 2.28.200; the defendant driving opposite the normal flow of traffic on a multiple lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or greater (multiple lane highway per RCW 46.04.350); and assault of a utility employee who was engaged in official duties. The text includes cross-references to RCW 9.94A.537, 9.94A.585, 9.94A.589 and other statutory definitions (for example RCW 10.99.020, 9A.46.110, chapter 69.50 RCW, RCW 19.290.010, and RCW 9.68A.075/9.68A.011). The provided document excerpts are incomplete and partially truncated, and it is unclear from these excerpts alone whether every clause shown is within the aggravated-factor list or another subsection; the editorial markup and missing text prevent confirmation of final wording and placement.

If enacted, the bill widens the list of specific circumstances that make it more likely a judge can impose a determinate prison term above the standard range, by naming new aggravating situations such as crimes committed because the offender thought the victim was homeless, assaults on utility workers doing official duties, assaults in courtroom-adjacent spaces during judicial proceedings when required signage is posted, and wrong‑way driving on high‑speed multi‑lane highways while committing an offense. That change means prosecutors have clearer grounds to ask for longer sentences, defendants face a higher risk of aggravated, determinate sentences (and in some listed situations judges may do so without a jury finding if the parties agree), and trial courts will have to prepare written findings explaining any exceptional sentence, which could increase courtroom and post-conviction workload and appeals. The people most directly affected are prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, victims (notably people perceived as homeless and utility employees), court administrators responsible for signage, and motorists involved in wrong‑way incidents; these groups should expect increased sentencing severity, more required documentation by courts, and potentially more appeals. Important details are missing from the provided text (the extract is incomplete and contains editorial markup around the word “child”), so the exact final wording and how some of these factors integrate with existing sentencing rules is unclear.