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.
22 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Personal Restraint of Laverygreen2 sentences2014But the elements of the charged crime must remain the cornerstone of this inquiry because “ ‘[f]acts or allegations contained in the record, if not directly related to the elements of the charged crime, may not have been sufficiently proven in the trial.’ ” Lavery, 154 Wn.2d at 255 (quoting Morley, 134 Wn.2d at 606 ). ¶8 In the factual comparability analysis, the sentencing court is not allowed to consider evidence not presented in the out-of-state proceeding. 2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox | 1 | 9 |
State v. Morleygreen2 sentences2024Morley, 134 Wn.2d at 606 ; Lavery, 154 Wn.2d at 255 . 2014But the elements of the charged crime must remain the cornerstone of this inquiry because “ ‘[f]acts or allegations contained in the record, if not directly related to the elements of the charged crime, may not have been sufficiently proven in the trial.’ ” Lavery, 154 Wn.2d at 255 (quoting Morley, 134 Wn.2d at 606 ). ¶8 In the factual comparability analysis, the sentencing court is not allowed to consider evidence not presented in the out-of-state proceeding. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Thiefaultgreen2 sentences2007The Court remanded to the superior court to conduct a factual comparability analysis of the out-of-state conviction and ordered the trial court, "[i]n making such a determination, [to] rely on only those facts that Thiefault stipulated or admitted to or those that were proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Thiefault, 160 Wash.2d at 420 , 158 P.3d 580 . 2007The court remanded to the superior court to conduct a factual comparability analysis of the out-of-state conviction and ordered the trial court, “[i]n making such a determination, [to] rely on only those facts that Thiefault stipulated or admitted to or those that were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d at 420 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2016State v. Thomas, 135 Wn. 2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox | 3 | 2010–2016 |
State v. Olsen
green
2 sentences2024Pursuant to the factual comparability inquiry, the court must determine “whether the defendant’s conduct would have violated the comparable Washington statute.” Olsen, 180 Wn.2d at 473 . 2015When performing a factual comparability analysis, we ask " whether the defendant' s conduct would have violated the comparable Washington statute." Olsen, 180 Wn.2d at 473 . | 2 | 2015–2024 |
In Re Personal Restraint of Lavery
green
2 sentences2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox 2006As long as the trial court determines that the relevant facts in a foreign court's record have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Lavery, 154 Wash.2d at 258 , 111 P.3d 837 , the trial court must conduct a comparability analysis [12] and include a prior foreign conviction in calculating the defendant's offender score. ¶ 50 We hold that the trial court did not violate Farnsworth's sixth amendment right under Blakely by engaging in a factual comparability analysis when it calculated his offender score for sentencing. ¶ 51 A defendant's offender score determines the range that sentencing court | 2 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Releford
green
2 sentences2009Morley, 134 Wn.2d at 606 ; State v. Releford, 148 Wn. 2009Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 ; State v. Releford, 148 Wash.App. 478, 487-88 , 200 P.3d 729 (2009). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2007Thiefault argues that the United States Supreme Court holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2007Thiefault argues that the United States Supreme Court holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Wallace
green
1 sentence2026Therefore, the factual comparability analysis suffers the same infirmity as the legal comparability analysis. 2 See Wallace, 33 Cal. 4th at 749-50 . 12 No. 40921-0-III State v. Merritt C. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Elmi
green
1 sentence2015Elmi, 166 Wn.2d at 215 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence2014App. 95, 107-08 , 117 P.3d 1182 (2005) (holding that Oregon’s former unauthorized use of a vehicle offense was not legally comparable to Washington’s taking a motor vehicle without permission offense because the former Oregon statute prohibited a broader range of activity than the former Washington statute). 4 But the sentencing court performed a factual comparability analysis and determined that Arndt’s conduct would have violated the former Washington statute. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Mills
green
1 sentence2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Mills
green
1 sentence2010State v. Mills, 154 Wash.2d 1, 6 , 109 P.3d 415 (2005); RAP 2.5(a)(3). [8] RCW 46.61.502(1) provides "[a] person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state: (a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intox | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Morley
green
1 sentence2009Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 ; State v. Releford, 148 Wash.App. 478, 487-88 , 200 P.3d 729 (2009). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Releford
green
1 sentence2009Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 ; State v. Releford, 148 Wash.App. 478, 487-88 , 200 P.3d 729 (2009). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Thiefault argues that the United States Supreme Court holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and most recently in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), require a jury to determine whether a prior conviction is comparable. [5] *585 ¶ 15 This court has repeatedly rejected similar arguments and held that Apprendi and its progeny do not require the State to submit a defendant's prior convictions to a jury and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. 2007Thiefault argues that the United States Supreme Court holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and most recently in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), require a jury to determine whether a prior conviction is comparable. [5] *585 ¶ 15 This court has repeatedly rejected similar arguments and held that Apprendi and its progeny do not require the State to submit a defendant's prior convictions to a jury and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Thiefault
green
1 sentence2007The Court remanded to the superior court to conduct a factual comparability analysis of the out-of-state conviction and ordered the trial court, "[i]n making such a determination, [to] rely on only those facts that Thiefault stipulated or admitted to or those that were proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Thiefault, 160 Wash.2d at 420 , 158 P.3d 580 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.