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.
13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Toneygreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., State v. Toney, 149 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018Citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L. 2018Citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L. | 4 | 2006–2018 |
In re Meippen
green
2 sentences2024Restraint of Meippen, 193 Wn.2d 310, 313 , 440 P.3d 978 (2019) (dismissing a personal restraint petition for lack of error and prejudice for a juvenile who was sentenced at the top end of the standard range at a contested hearing). 3 With these considerations in mind, we turn to the issue before us. 3 We also rejected the argument that trial courts must presume exceptional sentences below the standard range are required for juvenile defendants unless the State proves otherwise. 2024Restraint of Meippen, 193 Wn.2d 310, 313 , 440 P.3d 978 (2019) (dismissing a personal restraint petition for lack of error and prejudice for a juvenile who was sentenced at the top end of the standard range at a contested hearing). 3 With these considerations in mind, we turn to the issue before us. 3 We also rejected the argument that trial courts must presume exceptional sentences below the standard range are required for juvenile defendants unless the State proves otherwise. | 3 | 2021–2024 |
State v. Gore
red
2 sentences2006Gore, 143 Wash.2d at 314 , 21 P.3d 262 . 2006Gore, 143 Wn.2d at 314 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. REANIER
green
1 sentence2026We cited Sunich, in holding that “[t]he ‘maximum possible penal sentence’ refers to the statutory maximum of the charged offense, not the top end of the standard range as defined by the [SRA].” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Gregg
green
2 sentences2024State v. Gregg, 196 Wn.2d 473, 482-83 , 474 P.3d 539 (2020). 11 No. 102311-1 1. 2024State v. Gregg, 196 Wn.2d 473, 482-83 , 474 P.3d 539 (2020). 11 No. 102311-1 1. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Knotek
neutral
1 sentence2021App. 412 , 149 P.3d 676 (2006), Phillips claims that he was misinformed of the potential sentencing consequences when he was advised of the statutory 8 See RAP 2.5(a). 10 No. 53938-1-II (Consol. with 53948-9-II) maximum sentences because he would not be exposed to any sentence beyond the top-end of the standard sentencing ranges. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2020App. 153, 156, 167 , 916 P.2d 960 (1996) (upholding 100-year sentence that was 3.1 times the top end of the standard range for attempted first degree murder, robbery, rape, and kidnapping). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kennar
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Gore
red
1 sentence2006Gore, 143 Wash.2d at 314 , 21 P.3d 262 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Franklin
green
1 sentence1992Class C prior felony convictions shall not be included in the offender score if, since the last date of release from confinement (including full-time residential treatment) pursuant to a felony conviction, if any, or entry of judgment and sentence, the offender had spent five consecutive years in the community without being convicted of any felonies." 5 Presumably, the elements of the out-of-state crime can be obtained from the out-of-state statute or, assuming that the other state's law requires that all elements of the crime be stated in the charge, from the out-of-state charge. 6 State v. F | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.