How cited: State v. Felix · Go Syfert

State v. Felix (2005)

green · 26 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 5 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200520152026
Quote Authority · Wash. Ct. App.
BISHOP, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 87, at 55(2d ed. 1872)). 6 Felix, 125 Wn.
"Felix and Hammond have not argued there is a basis in Apprendi or its progeny to distinguish between 'punishment'for the purposes of the right to a jury finding and 'punishment'for purposes of ex post facto and double jeopardy, and we find no reason to make such a distinction."
Cited · Wash. Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Felix, 125 Wn.
citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000)
Cited · Wash. Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Felix, 125 Wn.
concluding that a judge-made finding that a crime involved domestic violence did not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights because consequences were regulatory, not punitive
Cited · Wash. Ct. App. · signal: see
See State v. Felix, 125 Wn.
A jury must find a crime amounts to “domestic violence” only if it “increases the defendant[’s] potential punishment.”
green State v. Winston (2006)
Cited · Wash. Ct. App. · signal: see
See RCW 10.99.010. ¶ 16 A finding of domestic violence alone does not authorize an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h) [4] and does not impermissibly increase the potential punishment. *366 State v. Felix, 125 Wash.App. 575, 578 , 105 P.3d 427 , review denied, 155 Wash.2d 1003 , 122 P.3d 185 (2005).