14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2006 0 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 Detention of Davisgreen2 sentences2004App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) (“We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense.”), review denied, 150 Wn.2d 1002 (2003). ¶9 Here, the State filed its petition before McNutt was released from total confinement on the crime of communicating with a minor. 2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 2 | 4 |
Henrickson v. Stategreen2 sentences2002If this court were to reject the foregoing argument that Albrecht’s incarceration at the time of the petition’s filing was for the 1992 offense and were to take the narrower view that the incarceration was for the community placement violation and nothing more, this court would have to explain why Albrecht’s incarceration for the community placement violation was not, as Henrickson requires in the alternative, “incarceration] ... for an act that would itself qualify as a recent overt act.” 140 Wn.2d at 695 (citation omitted). 2002Consequently, I agree with the State’s argument that Albrecht’s incarceration for the community placement violation satisfied the second option set forth in our Henrickson holding: that a recent overt act need not be alleged if, at the time of the petition’s filing, the defendant “is incarcerated ... for an act that would itself qualify as a recent overt act.” 140 Wn.2d at 695 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Davis, 109 Wn. 2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 1 | 5 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Youngred2 sentences2002See RCW 71.09.030(5) (limiting recent overt act requirement to petitions filed against an individual who `has since been released from total confinement')." Henrickson, 140 Wash.2d at 692-93 , 2 P.3d 473 . [33] RCW 71.09.030(1). [34] We cannot agree with the Albrecht majority's conclusion that incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute "total confinement" under RCW 71.09.030(1) because the statutory definition of that term clearly includes incarceration for whatever reason. [35] Young, 122 Wash.2d at 26 , 857 P.2d 989 (citing U.S. Const. amends. 2002See RCW 71.09.030(5) (limiting recent overt act requirement to petitions filed against an individual who `has since been released from total confinement')." Henrickson, 140 Wash.2d at 692-93 , 2 P.3d 473 . [33] RCW 71.09.030(1). [34] We cannot agree with the Albrecht majority's conclusion that incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute "total confinement" under RCW 71.09.030(1) because the statutory definition of that term clearly includes incarceration for whatever reason. [35] Young, 122 Wash.2d at 26 , 857 P.2d 989 (citing U.S. Const. amends. | 1 | 2 |
Detention of Henrickson v. Stategreen2 sentences2002If this court were to reject the foregoing argument that Albrecht's incarceration at the time of the petition's filing was for the 1992 offense and were to take the narrower view that the incarceration was for the community placement violation and nothing more, this court would have to explain why Albrecht's incarceration for the community placement violation was not, as Henrickson requires in the alternative, "incarcerat[ion] ... for an act that would itself qualify as a recent overt act." 140 Wash.2d at 695, 2 P.3d 473 (citation omitted). 2002See RCW 71.09.030(5) (limiting recent overt act requirement to petitions filed against an individual who `has since been released from total confinement')." Henrickson, 140 Wash.2d at 692-93 , 2 P.3d 473 . [33] RCW 71.09.030(1). [34] We cannot agree with the Albrecht majority's conclusion that incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute "total confinement" under RCW 71.09.030(1) because the statutory definition of that term clearly includes incarceration for whatever reason. [35] Young, 122 Wash.2d at 26 , 857 P.2d 989 (citing U.S. Const. amends. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Detention of Brotengreen1 sentence2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 1 | 1 |
In re the Detention of Brotengreen1 sentence2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Detention of Albrecht
green
2 sentences2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash 2003Albrecht, 147 Wn.2d at 5-6 . | 3 | 2003–2004 |
In re the Detention of Paschke
neutral
2 sentences2006Distinguishing Albrecht , the Paschke court determined that the State could not circumvent the recent overt requirement because, unlike Albrecht's short-term incarceration for a community placement violation, Paschke spent several years in prison before the State filed its petition. ¶ 38 The Paschke court further reasoned that events that occurred several years previously could not be "recent," so it would be absurd to require the State to prove a recent overt act, just as it would be absurd to require such proof for a currently incarcerated individual. 121 Wash.App. at 623 , 90 P.3d 74 . 2006Distinguishing Albrecht, the Paschke court determined that the State could not circumvent the recent overt requirement because, unlike Albrecht’s short-term incarceration for a community placement violation, Paschke spent several years in prison before the State filed its petition. ¶38 The Paschke court further reasoned that events that occurred several years previously could not be “recent,” so it would be absurd to require the State to prove a recent overt act, just as it would be absurd to require such proof for a currently incarcerated individual. 121 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1
neutral
2 sentences2004App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) (“We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense.”), review denied, 150 Wn.2d 1002 (2003). ¶9 Here, the State filed its petition before McNutt was released from total confinement on the crime of communicating with a minor. 2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Albrecht
green
2 sentences2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash 2003Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 5-6 , 51 P.3d 73 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Acevedo
green
2 sentences1999Acevedo, 137 Wn.2d at 202-03 . 1999Oseguera Acevedo, 137 Wn.2d at 187-88 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Detention of Paschke v. State
neutral
2 sentences2006Distinguishing Albrecht , the Paschke court determined that the State could not circumvent the recent overt requirement because, unlike Albrecht's short-term incarceration for a community placement violation, Paschke spent several years in prison before the State filed its petition. ¶ 38 The Paschke court further reasoned that events that occurred several years previously could not be "recent," so it would be absurd to require the State to prove a recent overt act, just as it would be absurd to require such proof for a currently incarcerated individual. 121 Wash.App. at 623 , 90 P.3d 74 . 2006Finally, the court concluded that "the sole reasonable inference" from the record was that Paschke's re-incarceration resulted from a recent overt act, as evidenced by the victims' testimony as well as his own admission that the obscene telephone calls were a "relapse." Paschke, 121 Wash.App. at 623 , 90 P.3d 74 . ¶ 39 Here, the State persuaded the trial court to accept Paschke as controlling authority. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. v. Winsor
green
1 sentence2004Albrecht, 147 Wash.2d at 10-11 , 51 P.3d 73 ; see also, In re Detention of Broten, 115 Wash.App. 252, 256 , 62 P.3d 514 (2003) ("The State is relieved of its burden of proving a recent overt act only if the offender has not been released from total confinement since he was convicted."); In re Detention of Davis, 109 Wash.App. 734, 736 , 37 P.3d 325 (2002) ("We hold that in the context of civil commitment proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW, incarceration for a community placement violation does not constitute incarceration for the underlying sexually violent offense."), review denied, 150 Wash | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence1999In Ross , the defendant was sentenced with the aid of an outdated plea form lacking a community placement warning. 129 Wn.2d at 282 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Rawson
green
1 sentence1999“Did the plea form omit the community placement warning and did the defendant state that he would not have agreed to plead ‘guilty’ if he had been informed of that requirement?” Rawson, 94 Wn. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.