87 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter 2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter | 6 | 24 |
State v. Hughesred2 sentences2024In a related decision, State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 , 110 P.3d 192 (2005), decided the same day, the state court labeled the Blakely error to be “structural error.” State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 142 (2005). 2024In a related decision, State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 , 110 P.3d 192 (2005), decided the same day, the state court labeled the Blakely error to be “structural error.” State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 142 (2005). | 6 | 16 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012Scott did not appeal again, and on May 9, 2004, his judgment and sentence became final. ¶ 5 Six weeks later, the United States Supreme Court announced Blakely, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , placing Washington's sentencing procedures into some doubt. [2] The next year, we held both that Blakely error could not be harmless and that Blakely was not retroactive. 2012Scott did not appeal again, and on May 9, 2004, his judgment and sentence became final. ¶ 5 Six weeks later, the United States Supreme Court announced Blakely, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , placing Washington's sentencing procedures into some doubt. [2] The next year, we held both that Blakely error could not be harmless and that Blakely was not retroactive. | 4 | 19 |
State v. Van Burengreen2 sentences2005Thus, it is not affected by the Blakely requirement that factual issues used to impose an exceptional sentence must be pleaded and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 123 Wash.App. 634, 653 , 98 P.3d 1235 (2004) (footnote and emphasis omitted); see also State v. Alkire, 124 Wash.App. 169, 176 , 100 P.3d 837 (2004) (Division One opinion holding that when defendant had offender scores of 20 and 21, his "exceptional sentence fell squarely within the narrow exception for prior convictions recognized by Apprendi [ v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)] and Bl 2005Van Burén, 123 Wn. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ferogreen2 sentences2005App. 84 , 104 P.3d 49 (2005) (Blakely error “structural” and therefore not subject to harmless error analysis); State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir.2002); United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 824 , 124 S.Ct. 178 , 157 L.Ed.2d 46 (2003); United States v. Nance, 236 F.3d 820, 825-26 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 832 , 122 S.Ct. 79 , 151 L.Ed.2d 43 (2001); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 922 , 121 S.Ct. 2535 , 150 L.Ed.2d 705 (2001); People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352 , 27 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Minesgreen2 sentences2015See id. at 391 . 2015See Mines, 163 Wn.2d at 391 . 3 No. 25729-1-III In re Pers. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Allengreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hughesred2 sentences2024In a related decision, State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 , 110 P.3d 192 (2005), decided the same day, the state court labeled the Blakely error to be “structural error.” State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 142 (2005). 2024In a related decision, State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118 , 110 P.3d 192 (2005), decided the same day, the state court labeled the Blakely error to be “structural error.” State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 142 (2005). | 1 | 13 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2005App. 170 , 100 P.3d 773 (2004) (claimed Blakely error as to consecutive sentences not reviewable for the first time on appeal because making crimes consecutive does not implicate the relevant statutory maximum in any obvious way). |13 The consecutive sentencing decision in RCW 9.94A.589 based on a determination that multiple serious violent offenses are separate criminal conduct does not involve facts, in the words of the Apprendi majority, “necessary to constitute a statutory offense.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 483 . 2005Thus, it is not affected by the Blakely requirement that factual issues used to impose an exceptional sentence must be pleaded and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 123 Wash.App. 634, 653 , 98 P.3d 1235 (2004) (footnote and emphasis omitted); see also State v. Alkire, 124 Wash.App. 169, 176 , 100 P.3d 837 (2004) (Division One opinion holding that when defendant had offender scores of 20 and 21, his "exceptional sentence fell squarely within the narrow exception for prior convictions recognized by Apprendi [ v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)] and Bl | 1 | 9 |
State v. Recuencored2 sentences2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter 2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter | 1 | 5 |
State v. Cubiasgreen2 sentences2008Cf. State v. Cubias, 155 Wn.2d 549 , 120 P.3d 929 (2005) (finding no Blakely violation where the jury verdict necessarily implies the defen dant committed multiple serious violent offenses, triggering the imposition of a mandatory consecutive sentence). 2008Our decision was premised upon the apparent authority of State v. Cubias, 155 Wn.2d 549, 120 P.3d 929 (2005), in which our Supreme Court, faced with a seemingly similar Blakely challenge, had affirmed a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences where each individual sentence imposed was itself within the applicable standard range. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Cubiasgreen2 sentences2008Cf. State v. Cubias, 155 Wn.2d 549 , 120 P.3d 929 (2005) (finding no Blakely violation where the jury verdict necessarily implies the defen dant committed multiple serious violent offenses, triggering the imposition of a mandatory consecutive sentence). 2008Our decision was premised upon the apparent authority of State v. Cubias, 155 Wn.2d 549, 120 P.3d 929 (2005), in which our Supreme Court, faced with a seemingly similar Blakely challenge, had affirmed a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences where each individual sentence imposed was itself within the applicable standard range. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Suleimangreen2 sentences2014See Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d at 295 ( remanding to Court of Appeals to determine whether Blakely error was harmless). 2014See Suleiman, 158 Wn.2d at 295 ( remanding to Court of Appeals to determine whether Blakely error was harmless). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Clarkegreen2 sentences2024Because Clarke’s sentence is indeterminate, his exceptional minimum sentence, although part of his punishment, is irrelevant under Blakely analysis because the relevant statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is life imprisonment. 156 Wn.2d 880, 890-91 , 134 P.3d 188 (2006). 2009In Clarke , we noted that “[b]ecause Clarke’s sentence is indeterminate, his exceptional minimum sentence, although part of his punishment, is irrelevant under Blakely analysis because the relevant statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is life imprisonment.” 156 Wn.2d at 891. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2010Monroe, 126 Wash.App. at 442 , 109 P.3d 449 (footnote and citation omitted); see also State v. O'Connell, 137 Wash.App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 ( Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wash.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). 2010App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 (Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wn.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
State v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2010Monroe, 126 Wash.App. at 442 , 109 P.3d 449 (footnote and citation omitted); see also State v. O'Connell, 137 Wash.App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 ( Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wash.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). 2010App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 (Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wn.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
State v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2010Monroe, 126 Wash.App. at 442 , 109 P.3d 449 (footnote and citation omitted); see also State v. O'Connell, 137 Wash.App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 ( Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wash.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). 2010App. 81 , 89, 152 P.3d 349 (Blakely error is manifest constitutional error and may be considered for the first time on appeal), review denied, 162 Wn.2d 1007 , 175 P.3d 1094 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hagargreen2 sentences2009Hagar, 158 Wn.2d at 374 (defendant need not challenge his or her stipulation in order to establish that a Blakely violation occurred). 2009Hagar, 158 Wn.2d at 374 (defendant need not challenge his or her stipulation in order to establish that a Blakely violation occurred). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Williams-Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bobenhousegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Parmeleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'Connellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dykstragreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Shannon Wayne Tighegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alkiregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ferogreen2 sentences2005App. 84 , 104 P.3d 49 (2005) (Blakely error “structural” and therefore not subject to harmless error analysis); State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir.2002); United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 824 , 124 S.Ct. 178 , 157 L.Ed.2d 46 (2003); United States v. Nance, 236 F.3d 820, 825-26 (7th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 832 , 122 S.Ct. 79 , 151 L.Ed.2d 43 (2001); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 922 , 121 S.Ct. 2535 , 150 L.Ed.2d 705 (2001); People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352 , 27 | 1 | 3 |
| Schriro v. Summerlingreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ring v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Recuenco
red
2 sentences2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter 2009In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the United States Supreme Court clarified its holding in Apprendi , stating that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. " ¶ 16 In State v. Recuenco, 154 Wash.2d 156, 160, 162-63 , 110 P.3d 188 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), our Supreme Court held that it was a Blakely violation for the sentencing court to enter | 4 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Suleiman
green
2 sentences2008The "statutory maximum" is the maximum that a judge may impose " without any additional findings." Suleiman, 158 Wash.2d at 289 , 143 P.3d 795 (emphasis added) (quoting Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303-04 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 ). 2007Suleiman, 158 Wash.2d at 283-84 , 143 P.3d 795 . | 4 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Alvarado
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2010State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 563 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 3 | 2010–2021 |
State v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2009The petition was again stayed pending our decision in State v. Recuenco, 163 Wash.2d 428 , 180 P.3d 1276 (2008). [3] Following these stays, Beito's personal restraint petition was granted only on the Blakely issue. 2009The petition was again stayed pending our decision in State v. Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d 428 , 180 P.3d 1276 (2008). 3 Following these stays, Beito’s personal restraint petition was granted only on the Blakely issue. | 3 | 2009–2010 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Skylstad
green
2 sentences2011The court held, In In re Personal Restraint of Skylstad, our Supreme Court recently explained that a conviction is “final” for PRP time-bar purposes only if both the conviction and the sentence are final. 160 Wn.2d 944, 949-50 , 162 P.3d 413 (2007). 2011The court held, In In re Personal Restraint of Skylstad, our Supreme Court recently explained that a conviction is “final” for PRP time-bar purposes only if both the conviction and the sentence are final. 160 Wn.2d 944, 949-50 , 162 P.3d 413 (2007). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Frost
green
2 sentences2010Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 219-20 . “ ‘[M]ost constitutional errors can be harmless.’ ” State v. Frost, 160 Wn.2d 765, 781 , 161 P.3d 361 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 218 ). ¶23 Here, however, the question is whether a sentencing enhancement that violated the defendant’s right (under article I, sections 21 and 22) to have a jury determine all the factors that subject him to greater punishment can be harmless under our state constitution. 2010Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 219-20 . “ ‘[M]ost constitutional errors can be harmless.’ ” State v. Frost, 160 Wn.2d 765, 781 , 161 P.3d 361 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 218 ). ¶23 Here, however, the question is whether a sentencing enhancement that violated the defendant’s right (under article I, sections 21 and 22) to have a jury determine all the factors that subject him to greater punishment can be harmless under our state constitution. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Frost
green
2 sentences2010Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 219-20 . “ ‘[M]ost constitutional errors can be harmless.’ ” State v. Frost, 160 Wn.2d 765, 781 , 161 P.3d 361 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 218 ). ¶23 Here, however, the question is whether a sentencing enhancement that violated the defendant’s right (under article I, sections 21 and 22) to have a jury determine all the factors that subject him to greater punishment can be harmless under our state constitution. 2010Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 219-20 . “ ‘[M]ost constitutional errors can be harmless.’ ” State v. Frost, 160 Wn.2d 765, 781 , 161 P.3d 361 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Recuenco II, 548 U.S. at 218 ). ¶23 Here, however, the question is whether a sentencing enhancement that violated the defendant’s right (under article I, sections 21 and 22) to have a jury determine all the factors that subject him to greater punishment can be harmless under our state constitution. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Alvarado
green
2 sentences2010State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 563 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2010State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 563 , 192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Hall
green
2 sentences2009Hall, 163 Wn.2d at 350 . ¶8 The State petitioned for writ of certiorari. 2009Hall, 163 Wn.2d at 350 . ¶8 The State petitioned for writ of certiorari. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2009The petition was again stayed pending our decision in State v. Recuenco, 163 Wash.2d 428 , 180 P.3d 1276 (2008). [3] Following these stays, Beito's personal restraint petition was granted only on the Blakely issue. 2009The petition was again stayed pending our decision in State v. Recuenco, 163 Wn.2d 428 , 180 P.3d 1276 (2008). 3 Following these stays, Beito’s personal restraint petition was granted only on the Blakely issue. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Dowling v. United States
green
2 sentences2008Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348 , 110 S. Ct. 668 , 107 L. 2008Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348 , 110 S. Ct. 668 , 107 L. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Adams
neutral
2 sentences2008State v. Vance, noted at 131 Wash.App. 1016 , 2006 WL 158664 (2006). [8] We review constitutional challenges and questions of law de novo. 2008State v. Vance, noted at 131 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Thorne
green
2 sentences2007State v. Moore, 79 Wash.2d 51, 57 , 483 P.2d 630 (1971). ¶ 11 In 1991, in State v. Thorne , the Washington Supreme Court decided that, because the essential elements of a crime must be set out in the charging document, the POAA would be unconstitutional only if it created a separate offense that the charging document *433 did not allege. 129 Wash.2d 736, 779 , 921 P.2d 514 (1996) (citing State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash.2d 93 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). 2007State v. Moore, 79 Wn.2d 51, 57 , 483 P.2d 630 (1971). ¶11 In 1991, in State v. Thorne, the Washington Supreme Court decided that because the essential elements of a crime must be set out in the charging document, the POAA would be unconstitutional only if it created a separate offense that the charging document did not allege. 129 Wn.2d 736, 779 , 921 P.2d 514 (1996) (citing State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991)). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Ball green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Moore green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Kjorsvik green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Thorne green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Wilson v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF STATE green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Womac green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| McMillan v. Pennsylvania red | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Van Buren green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Cotton green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| Neder v. United States green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Thomas green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Thomas green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Fuerte-Coria green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Fero green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Clarke green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Knotek green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Applegate neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. McNeal green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Applegate green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. McNeal green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Monroe green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Monroe green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Hagar green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In Re Personal Restraint of Hall green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.