The Hernandez Melgar Sentencing: What Washington Law Decides on July 22

Before this case became a trial, a verdict, or a sentencing date, Lindsay Geary was a daughter, sister, aunt and longtime Everett resident. Her obituary remembered a kind and caring woman with a “huge heart,” a bookkeeper who worked at Safeway and cared deeply about her family and animals.

The Verified Case Posture

On June 22, 2026, after a four-week trial in Snohomish County Superior Court, a jury found Nestor Hernandez Melgar guilty on all three charged counts: first-degree murder, first-degree burglary and violation of a domestic-violence no-contact order. The jury also found a domestic-violence aggravating circumstance attached to each count.

The first-degree murder verdict means the jurors concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez Melgar caused Geary’s death with the premeditated intent required by Washington law. The burglary verdict separately reflects the jury’s determination that his entry into or remaining in the residence met the elements of first-degree burglary. The no-contact-order verdict established a separate violation of the court order then in effect.

One important forensic fact remains unchanged by the verdict: the Snohomish County Medical Examiner classified Geary’s cause of death as asphyxia due to ligature compression but recorded the manner of death as undetermined, rather than homicide or suicide. That is not the same question the jury decided. A medical examiner classifies a death from the medical and investigative record. A jury decides whether the prosecution proved the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt after hearing all admitted evidence.

The two conclusions therefore remain side by side. The medical record still says the manner could not be determined. The legal record now says a jury found Hernandez Melgar guilty of first-degree murder.

Sentencing is reported as set for Wednesday, July 22, 2026, in Snohomish County Superior Court. Hernandez Melgar remains in custody pending sentencing.

Reporting caution: Do not write that the medical examiner “ruled the death a murder.” The office did not. Also avoid saying the jury “overruled” the medical examiner. The jury and the medical examiner performed different jobs under different standards.

Sources for this section: The Daily Herald, “Jury convicts man in Everett murder staged as suicide,” June 22, 2026; RCW 9A.32.030, Murder in the first degree, accessed July 18, 2026; Cassian Creed / Neural Edge Publishing, “The Jury Said Murder. The Medical Examiner Said Undetermined,” June 22, 2026; Lindsay Geary obituary, The Daily Herald via Legacy, December 2024.

What Washington Sentencing Law Provides

Washington does not give a trial judge a blank sheet of paper at sentencing. For felony convictions, the court begins with the state’s sentencing grid. Two numbers matter: the crime’s seriousness level and the defendant’s offender score, which is largely based on qualifying criminal history and other current convictions.

First-degree murder is a seriousness-level XV offense, one of the highest levels on Washington’s grid. At offender score zero, the standard range shown on the current grid is 240 to 320 months, or 20 years to 26 years and 8 months. The range rises as the offender score rises, reaching 411 to 548 months, or 34 years and 3 months to 45 years and 8 months, at a score of nine or more.

Those figures are the outer span of the level-XV grid, not a prediction of Hernandez Melgar’s sentence. His precise standard range cannot be responsibly stated until the offender score used by the court is confirmed from the parties’ sentencing materials or the judgment-and-sentence hearing.

Washington’s homicide statute also says a person convicted of first-degree murder “shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.” In the modern determinate-sentencing system, that language establishes life as the Class A felony’s statutory maximum; it does not mean every first-degree-murder conviction automatically produces life without parole. The sentencing grid supplies the ordinary determinate range unless another law or a legally supported exceptional sentence changes the result.

First-degree burglary is seriousness level VII. Its standard range also depends on offender score: from 15 to 20 months at score zero up to 87 to 116 months at score nine or more. The exact classification and sentencing treatment of the no-contact-order count must be taken from the charging document and verdict form; accessible reporting confirms the conviction but does not provide enough statutory detail to calculate its range safely.

The domestic-violence aggravating findings matter because Washington law permits a judge to impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range when a jury has found a qualifying aggravating circumstance and the court finds substantial and compelling reasons for departure. An above-range sentence is not automatic. The prosecution must ask for it, the defense may oppose it, and the judge must explain any departure in written findings and conclusions.

Another question is whether terms on the separate counts will run at the same time or one after another. Washington generally calculates multiple current offenses under statutory rules that often produce concurrent terms, but a court can impose an exceptional consecutive structure when the law and findings support it. Until the sentencing recommendations are filed or stated in court, it would be speculation to say which structure either side will request here.

In plain language: the murder conviction creates a very long presumptive prison range. The aggravating verdicts give the prosecution a legal route to seek more than the ordinary range. The judge still must calculate the correct offender score, identify the standard ranges, consider both sides’ recommendations and explain the sentence imposed.

Verified range snapshot

Conviction	Washington seriousness level	Grid range at offender score 0	Grid range at offender score 9+
First-degree murder	XV	240–320 months	411–548 months
First-degree burglary	VII	15–20 months	87–116 months
No-contact-order violation	Not safely calculable from accessible reporting	Depends on exact statute and classification	Depends on exact statute and classification

What is not yet verified

• Hernandez Melgar’s sentencing offender score.
• The prosecution’s requested sentence.
• The defense’s requested sentence.
• Whether either side seeks an exceptional consecutive sentence.
• The precise statute and felony/misdemeanor classification reflected in the final verdict on the no-contact-order count.
• Any restitution amount or other financial obligations to be requested.
• Whether the court has received a presentence investigation report.
• The hearing time, courtroom, and sentencing judge assigned for July 22.
• Whether sentencing memoranda have been filed but are not publicly indexed.
• Whether any post-verdict motions remain pending.

Sources for this section: RCW 9.94A.510, Sentencing grid; RCW 9.94A.515, Crimes within each seriousness level; RCW 9A.32.040, Murder in the first degree—Sentence; RCW 9A.20.021, Maximum sentences; RCW 9.94A.535, Departures from the guidelines; RCW 9.94A.537, Aggravating circumstances—Procedures; RCW 9.94A.589, Consecutive or concurrent sentences; Washington State Caseload Forecast Council, 2025 Adult Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

What Happens at a Washington Sentencing Hearing

A sentencing hearing begins after guilt has already been decided. The judge is not retrying whether Hernandez Melgar committed the crimes. The task is to impose the lawful sentence and place the court’s reasons on the record.

Washington law requires the court to hold a sentencing hearing before imposing sentence. The court may consider presentence materials, verified criminal history, victim-impact statements and the parties’ sentencing submissions. The prosecutor and defense then argue for the sentences they believe the law and facts support.

For Lindsay Geary’s family, sentencing is also the stage at which the law expressly gives survivors a voice. Washington’s Crime Victim Bill of Rights allows a victim or survivor to submit a victim-impact statement and to speak personally or through a representative at sentencing. Those statements may describe the financial, medical, social and psychological harm caused by the crime. In a homicide case, they can also tell the court who the victim was and what her absence has meant to the people who loved her.

The prosecution will normally state its recommended prison term and explain how it calculated the offender score, standard range, aggravating findings and any request for an exceptional sentence. The defense may challenge that calculation, argue for a different point within the range, oppose an exceptional sentence and present mitigating information or letters from people speaking on the defendant’s behalf.

Hernandez Melgar must be given an opportunity to address the court before sentence is imposed. That opportunity is commonly called allocution. He may speak, decline to speak or make a statement through counsel. Allocution is not testimony before a jury and does not reopen the verdict. It is the defendant’s personal opportunity to be heard before judgment is pronounced.

The judge may ask questions, resolve disputes about criminal history or sentencing law, announce the term of confinement and address other parts of the judgment, including community custody if authorized, restitution, mandatory assessments, credit for time already served and conditions that apply after release.

If the judge imposes an exceptional sentence outside the standard range, Washington law requires written findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the substantial and compelling reasons for that departure. The final judgment and sentence—not an advocate’s request or an early courtroom summary—will be the controlling record of what the court ordered.

The process in plain language

1. The court confirms the convictions and sentencing calculations.
2. Prosecutors make their recommendation.
3. Geary’s survivors may give victim-impact statements.
4. The defense makes its recommendation and presents mitigation.
5. Hernandez Melgar is offered allocution.
6. The judge announces the sentence and explains the decision.
7. The written judgment and sentence becomes the authoritative record.

The exact order can vary by judge and courtroom.

Sources for this section: RCW 9.94A.500, Sentencing hearing—Presentencing procedures; RCW 7.69.020, “victim impact statement” definition; RCW 7.69.030, Rights of victims and survivors; King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, “The criminal justice process—Sentencing hearing,” accessed July 18, 2026; RCW 9.94A.530, Standards for determining sentence.

What to Watch for on July 22

The most important part of the hearing will not be a single headline number. It will be how the court translates three guilty verdicts and three domestic-violence aggravating findings into one final judgment.

First, listen for the offender score. That number determines where the first-degree murder conviction lands on Washington’s level-XV sentencing grid. Without it, any precise prediction made before the hearing is incomplete.

Second, compare the prosecution and defense recommendations. The prosecution may ask for a sentence at the top of the standard range or for an exceptional sentence above it. The defense may seek a lower point within the range and oppose any upward departure. As of this writing, neither recommendation has been verified from publicly accessible sentencing memoranda.

Third, listen for exactly how the domestic-violence aggravators are used. The jury’s findings create a possible legal basis for an above-range sentence, but they do not dictate one automatically. If the judge departs upward, the court must identify the reasons and later put them into written findings.

Fourth, note whether the sentences on the three counts are concurrent or consecutive. A long number announced for one count does not by itself reveal the total term. The structure across all counts matters.

Fifth, center the victim-impact statements. Sentencing may be the first extended public opportunity for Lindsay Geary’s family to describe her life and the loss left behind. Those statements should not be reduced to whether relatives request a particular number of years. Their legal purpose is broader: to place the human impact before the court.

Sixth, listen for allocution without predicting it. Hernandez Melgar may speak or may decline. A statement could include remorse, denial, an apology, discussion of his life or nothing at all. None of those possibilities should be reported as fact before they occur.

Seventh, distinguish the oral ruling from the final written judgment. Verify the sentence count by count, the total confinement ordered, credit for time served, restitution, community-custody terms and any exceptional-sentence findings from the signed judgment when it becomes available.

The medical examiner’s “undetermined” classification may be mentioned by the defense, but the sentencing judge is not being asked to choose between homicide and suicide anew. The jury’s murder verdict is the operative legal finding unless it is later altered through post-trial or appellate proceedings.

For Geary’s family, July 22 is not a resolution of grief. It is the day the court decides the punishment that follows the verdict and creates the judgment from which the next legal stage—including any appeal—will proceed.

Sources for this section: The Daily Herald, June 22, 2026; RCW 9.94A.500; RCW 9.94A.535; RCW 9.94A.589; RCW 7.69.030.

The July 22, 2026 setting is reported consistently, but the hearing time and courtroom were not independently verified from an accessible official docket as of publication. Confirm those details with the Snohomish County Superior Court calendar. Available sources also conflict on Lindsay Geary’s age: her obituary lists 1987–2024, while The Daily Herald reported her as 37.