Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Osman
green
2 sentences2026And, “a defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural 7 No. 40325-4-III State v. Morales Perez requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements.” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 481-82 , 139 P.3d 334 (2006). 2025“A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA)].” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 481-82 , 139 P.3d 334 (2006). | 13 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Osman
green
2 sentences2026And, “a defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural 7 No. 40325-4-III State v. Morales Perez requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements.” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 481-82 , 139 P.3d 334 (2006). 2025“A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the [Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA)].” State v. Osman, 157 Wn.2d 474, 481-82 , 139 P.3d 334 (2006). | 10 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Mail
green
2 sentences2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. 2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. | 6 | 2005–2018 |
State v. McNeair
green
2 sentences2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. 2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. [7] State v. Mail, 121 Wash.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wash.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wash.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wash.App. 331, 336 , 944 P.2d 1099 (1997). ¶ 11 The decision to impose a SSOSA is entirely within the trial court's discretion. | 4 | 2003–2024 |
State v. Bramme
neutral
2 sentences2020State v. Bramme, 115 Wn. 2004State v. Bramme, 115 Wn. | 3 | 2004–2020 |
State v. Onefrey
green
2 sentences2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. 2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Herzog
green
2 sentences2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. 2006A defendant may appeal a standard range sentence if the sentencing court failed to comply with procedural requirements of the SRA or constitutional requirements. 7 State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 711-13 , 854 P.2d 1042 (1993); State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 574 , 835 P.2d 213 (1992); State v. Herzog, 112 Wn.2d 419, 423 , 771 P.2d 739 (1989); State v. McNeair, 88 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Conners
green
2 sentences2003Conners, 90 Wn. 2003Conners, 90 Wash.App. at 52 , 950 P.2d 519 ; State v. McNeair, 88 Wash.App. 331, 334 , 944 P.2d 1099 (1997). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Grayson
green
1 sentence2025While courts “have considerable discretion under the SRA, they are 3 59046-8-II still required to act within [statutory] strictures and [in accordance with] principles of due process of law.” State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 342 , 111 P.3d 1183 (2005). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Grayson
green
1 sentence2025While courts “have considerable discretion under the SRA, they are 3 59046-8-II still required to act within [statutory] strictures and [in accordance with] principles of due process of law.” State v. Grayson, 154 Wn.2d 333, 342 , 111 P.3d 1183 (2005). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Garcia-Martinez
green
1 sentence2025State v. Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Bramme
neutral
1 sentence2004State v. Bramme, 115 Wash.App. 844, 850 , 64 P.3d 60 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.