The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld a 180-month sentence for Two Dogs Salvatore Fasaga, who was convicted of drive-by shooting, assault in the third degree, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. This ruling, issued on November 10, 2026, clarifies important legal standards regarding sentencing and offender scores in criminal cases.

The court's decision is significant as it addresses the rights of defendants regarding jury determinations in sentencing. It also reaffirms the authority of trial courts to impose exceptional sentences based on specific legal conclusions, rather than requiring jury input on every aspect of the sentencing process.

Background

Two Dogs Fasaga was involved in a series of criminal incidents that led to his convictions. In 2018, police responded to a two-vehicle collision involving Fasaga. The driver of the other vehicle, identified as T.F., reported that Fasaga had approached him with his headlights off, and shortly thereafter, T.F. heard gunshots. Fasaga followed T.F. as he drove away, and a firearm was later found under Fasaga's vehicle.

Fasaga faced multiple charges over the years, including assault in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm. In 2020, he pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of ammunition. By 2024, Fasaga entered an Alford plea, which allows a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining their innocence, to the charges of drive-by shooting, assault in the third degree, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to impose an exceptional sentence of 180 months. The court found that Fasaga's offender score exceeded 9, which justified the exceptional sentence based on the “free crimes” aggravator. Chief Judge Veljacic noted, “the trial court found that Fasaga had committed multiple current offenses and, because his offender score was above 9, some of the offenses would go unpunished.”

The court also addressed Fasaga's argument that a jury should have determined whether his prior felony convictions washed out of his offender score. The court ruled that Fasaga had waived this argument by not raising it during the trial. The judges concluded that the trial court's findings regarding the exceptional sentence were based on legal determinations, not factual ones that required jury input.

Impact

This ruling has implications for how courts handle sentencing in Washington. It clarifies that trial courts can impose exceptional sentences based on legal conclusions about the offender's history and the nature of the crimes committed. This means that defendants may not always have the right to a jury trial for every aspect of their sentencing, particularly regarding the calculation of their offender score.

The decision also reinforces the importance of addressing legal arguments at the trial level. Defendants must raise their concerns during the trial to preserve them for appeal. This ruling could influence how future cases are argued in Washington courts, particularly for defendants with complex criminal histories.

What's Next

Fasaga's case may not be over, as he could seek further legal recourse. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding whether he plans to appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending.