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.
14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGreevy v. Oregon Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences1999McGreevy, 128 Wash.2d at 36-37 , 904 P.2d 731 (footnote and citation omitted). 1999McGreevy, 128 Wash.2d at 36-37 , 904 P.2d 731 (footnote and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gordongreen1 sentence2025See Gordon, 172 Wn.2d at 676 . | 1 | 1 |
State Of Washington v. Brian Ronquillogreen1 sentence2016Id. at 769-70. ¶16 On appeal, this court relied on O’Dell to hold that the trial court erred in concluding that it could not consider age as a basis for an exceptional sentence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 854 . 2025Id. at 854 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re Meippen
green
2 sentences2022The trial court considered these mitigating qualities and, nevertheless, imposed a top-end standard range sentence.” Meippen, 193 Wn.2d at 316 . 11 No. 50104-0-II Consol. 2021During sentencing, which occurred before our Supreme Court decided Houston-Sconiers, the defense “argued that mitigating qualities of youth—Meippen’s age, immaturity, and failure to appreciate the consequences of his actions—supported a sentence at the bottom of the standard range.” Id. at 316 . | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Xaviar
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2020In Xaviar, the State and the defendant agreed to a recommendation at the bottom of the standard range. 117 Wn. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Xaviar
green
1 sentence2024App. 196, 198-201 , 69 P.3d 901 (2003), the State and the defendant agreed to a recommendation at the bottom of the standard sentencing range. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Parker
green
1 sentence2022“When the sentencing court incorrectly calculates the standard range before imposing an exceptional sentence, remand is the remedy unless the record clearly indicates the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence anyway.” State v. Parker, 132 Wn.2d 182, 189 , 937 P.2d 575 (1997) (emphasis added). 12 No. 54296-0-II The trial court imposed both of Smith’s sentences at the bottom of the standard range and then ran Smith’s sentences consecutively as an exceptional sentence based on the free crimes aggravator. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Parker
green
1 sentence2022“When the sentencing court incorrectly calculates the standard range before imposing an exceptional sentence, remand is the remedy unless the record clearly indicates the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence anyway.” State v. Parker, 132 Wn.2d 182, 189 , 937 P.2d 575 (1997) (emphasis added). 12 No. 54296-0-II The trial court imposed both of Smith’s sentences at the bottom of the standard range and then ran Smith’s sentences consecutively as an exceptional sentence based on the free crimes aggravator. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Of Washington, V. Michael J. Rogers, Iii
green
1 sentence2021When a defendant establishes that youth is a mitigating factor, the provisions of the SRA3 do not apply and there simply is no “standard range.” Rogers, 17 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Skiggn
green
1 sentence2005App. 831, 838 , 795 P.2d 169 (1990). ¶22 First, the agreement supports the trial court’s finding that the parties intended a determinate 90-month recommendation, not a variable number tied to the bottom of the standard range. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.