State v. Oxborrow
Supreme Court of Washington
106 Wash. 2d 525 (1986)
Kenneth Oxborrow (defendant) co-founded the Wheatland Investment Company. Oxborrow told investors that he would place their money into the stock market and promised a large return on their investments. Oxborrow began to pay off previous investors with money acquired from newer investors, establishing a sophisticated pyramid scheme. Oxborrow stole millions of dollars for his own use to purchase expensive cars and homes. As a result, over 500 investors lost all of their investments. In August 1984, Oxborrow was served with a cease-and-desist order, prohibiting him from selling unregistered securities, which he ignored. Realizing he would not be able to pay back the investors, Oxborrow’s attorney approached the prosecutor’s office to discuss the scheme and a plea. Later, Oxborrow pled guilty to first-degree theft and willful violation of a cease-and-desist order. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) created presumptive sentencing ranges for felonies. Under the SRA, the presumptive sentence ranges for Oxborrow’s crimes were 0-90 days and 0-12 months, respectively, because he had no previous criminal history. The statutory maximum sentences were 10 years for each. The statute empowers the sentencing court to impose any sentence within the presumptive range that it considers appropriate and any sentence outside the range, also called an exceptional sentence, if it finds “compelling and substantial reasons” justifying such a sentence. The SRA provides a list of aggravating factors that may be considered by the court, including that the offense was a major economic offense involving: (1) multiple victims, (2) extraordinary monetary loss, (3) sophistication and planning, and (4) the defendant's use of a position of trust to manipulate victims. The prosecutor recommended that Oxborrow serve concurrent sentences of 10 and 5 years. Instead, Oxborrow was sentenced to consecutive 10 and 5-year terms, totaling 15 years. Oxborrow appealed his sentences, arguing that they were clearly excessive and that the court did not have authority under the SRA to impose consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Durham, J.)
Concurrence (Anderson, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Utter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 723,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 723,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.