83 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 15 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. Morleygreen2 sentences2009See Morley, 134 Wn.2d at 606 . ¶17 The second step of the comparability analysis requires that the trial court review the facts underlying the out-of-state conviction. 2009See Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . ¶ 17 The second step of the comparability analysis requires that the trial court review the facts underlying the out-of-state conviction. *570 Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . | 3 | 9 |
State v. McFarlandgreen2 sentences2007Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996); see also State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶9 In order to ascertain whether Thiefault’s counsel was deficient under Strickland’s first prong, this court must conduct a comparability analysis of the Montana conviction. 2007Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996); see also State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶9 In order to ascertain whether Thiefault’s counsel was deficient under Strickland’s first prong, this court must conduct a comparability analysis of the Montana conviction. | 3 | 3 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Laverygreen2 sentences2006As long as the trial court determines that the relevant facts in a foreign court’s record have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Lavery, 154 Wn.2d at 258 , 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 courts may use when determ 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 | 6 |
State v. Sublettgreen2 sentences2026Our Supreme Court has found that “[t]he focus of the comparability inquiry remains on the elements of the crimes, and not the defenses.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 89 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (plurality opinion). 2026Our Supreme Court has found that “[t]he focus of the comparability inquiry remains on the elements of the crimes, and not the defenses.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 89 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012) (plurality opinion). | 2 | 3 |
Jenkins v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2011To `presume' some recipients need fewer hours of care without individualized determination violates the comparability requirement." Jenkins, 160 Wash.2d at 300 , 157 P.3d 388 . ¶ 18 Our holding in Jenkins controls the resolution of this case. 2011Jenkins, 160 Wash.2d at 300 , 157 P.3d 388 ("To `presume' some recipients need fewer hours of care without individualized determination violates the comparability requirement."). ¶ 22 DSHS essentially argues that the presumptions in WAC 388-106-0213 create valid *1143 utilization control measures necessary to ensure that DSHS pays only for care-related needs and not for developmental needs. | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. DSHSgreen2 sentences2011To `presume' some recipients need fewer hours of care without individualized determination violates the comparability requirement." Jenkins, 160 Wash.2d at 300 , 157 P.3d 388 . ¶ 18 Our holding in Jenkins controls the resolution of this case. 2011Jenkins, 160 Wash.2d at 300 , 157 P.3d 388 ("To `presume' some recipients need fewer hours of care without individualized determination violates the comparability requirement."). ¶ 22 DSHS essentially argues that the presumptions in WAC 388-106-0213 create valid *1143 utilization control measures necessary to ensure that DSHS pays only for care-related needs and not for developmental needs. | 2 | 2 |
Kimmelman v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2009See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 , 106 S. Ct. 2574 , 91 L. 2009See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 , 106 S. Ct. 2574 , 91 L. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Jacobsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Jacobsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Ballgreen | 2 | 2 |
| McMillan v. McCrimongreen | 2 | 2 |
| White v. Bealgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Schott v. Olszewskigreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thiefaultgreen2 sentences2020In Thiefault, the superior court conducted a comparability analysis at sentencing and found that the defendant’s federal and out-of-state convictions were comparable to their Washington counterparts. 160 Wn.2d at 413 . 2017Therefore, in a comparability analysis we may consider only those underlying facts that were "admitted, stipulated to, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d at 415 . | 1 | 10 |
State v. Morleygreen2 sentences2009See Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . ¶ 17 The second step of the comparability analysis requires that the trial court review the facts underlying the out-of-state conviction. *570 Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . 2009See Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . ¶ 17 The second step of the comparability analysis requires that the trial court review the facts underlying the out-of-state conviction. *570 Morley, 134 Wash.2d at 606 , 952 P.2d 167 . | 1 | 5 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d 61, 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996); see also State v. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶ 9 In order to ascertain whether Thiefault's counsel was deficient under Strickland's first prong, this court must conduct a comparability analysis of the Montana conviction. 2007Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d 61, 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996); see also State v. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). ¶ 9 In order to ascertain whether Thiefault's counsel was deficient under Strickland's first prong, this court must conduct a comparability analysis of the Montana conviction. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2019Typically, in reviewing an out of state conviction, the trial court conducts a comparability analysis in which “[o]ut-of-state convictions are classified according to the comparable offense definitions and sentences provided in Washington law.” State v. Stevens, 137 Wn. 2016Typically, the trial court conducts a comparability analysis where "[0Jut-of-state convictions are classified according to the comparable offense definitions and sentences provided in Washington law." State v. Stevens, 137 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2011We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language, part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. 2011Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 . [10] We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wash.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kiergreen2 sentences2011We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language, part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. 2011Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 . [10] We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wash.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Cruzred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cruzred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lazcanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Birchgreen | 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. Olsen
green
2 sentences2024Olsen, 180 Wn.2d at 472-73 . 2022State v. Olsen, 180 Wn.2d 468, 472 , 325 P.3d 187 (2014). | 5 | 2015–2024 |
State v. Thiefault
green
2 sentences2021State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409, 414 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007). 2017Here, the trial court calculated Canha's offender score using four out-of-state convictions but it failed to perform a comparability analysis.^ This court could either remand to the superior court for a comparability analysis, see State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409,420 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007), or perform the comparability analysis and remand to the superior court for resentencing if necessary. | 5 | 2007–2021 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2025Jordan, 180 Wn.2d at 465 . 2024State v. Jordan, 180 Wn.2d 456, 465 , 325 P.3d 181 (2014). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2024Accordingly, a comparability analysis regarding the “fact of conviction” would continue to fall under the exception to the rule articulated in Apprendi. 530 U.S. at 490 . 2017Here, we choose to perform the comparability analysis and remand for resentencing. 2 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 8. | 2 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Releford
green
2 sentences2024Restraint of Canha, 189 Wn.2d 359 , 367, 402 P.3d 266 (2017). “[T]o establish factual comparability, the State need independently prove only those facts that, when alleged by the State, have not been admitted by the defendant.” State v. Releford, 148 Wn. 2014VRP ( Oct. 5, 2012 at 11). rel No. 44042 -3 -II these facts can be relied upon by a sentencing court conducting a comparability analysis. 148 Wn. | 2 | 2014–2024 |
State v. Stevens
neutral
2 sentences2019App. 460, 465 , 153 P.3d 903 (2007) (citing RCW 9.94A.525(3)). 2016App. 460, 465 , 153 P.3d 903 (2007) (citing RCW 9.94A.525(3». | 2 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Arndt
green
2 sentences2019A comparability analysis covers (1) ‘legal comparability,” and (2) “factual comparability.” Arndt, 179 Wn. 2016A comparability analysis covers (1) "legal comparability," and (2) "factual comparability." Arndt, 179 Wn. | 2 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Davis
red
2 sentences2018E.g., DavisII , 175 Wash.2d at 354 -55 , 290 P.3d 43 (finding death sentence proportionate even though, with respect to every comparability factor, the number of life sentences imposed vastly exceeded the number of death sentences imposed); Cross, 156 Wash.2d at 631 -34 , 132 P.3d 80 (affirming death sentence even though (1) "the death penalty has not been sought in cases at least as brutal," (2) *190 the single aggravating circumstance of multiple victims as part of a common scheme or plan does not weigh either for or against finding of proportionality, (3) the defendant had minimal criminal 2018E.g., DavisII , 175 Wash.2d at 354 -55 , 290 P.3d 43 (finding death sentence proportionate even though, with respect to every comparability factor, the number of life sentences imposed vastly exceeded the number of death sentences imposed); Cross, 156 Wash.2d at 631 -34 , 132 P.3d 80 (affirming death sentence even though (1) "the death penalty has not been sought in cases at least as brutal," (2) *190 the single aggravating circumstance of multiple victims as part of a common scheme or plan does not weigh either for or against finding of proportionality, (3) the defendant had minimal criminal | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability ofSelf-Defense Laws When interpreting the meaning of statutes, '"[t]he court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature's intent."' State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep 't ofEcology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). 2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability of Self-Defense Laws ¶12 When interpreting the meaning of statutes, “ ‘[t]he court’s fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.’ ” State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). ¶13 We have repeatedly recognized that the legislature purposefully created the SRA scheme broadly in order to “ ‘ensure that defendants with equivalent prior convictions are treated “the same way, regardless of | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Pannell
green
2 sentences2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability of Self-Defense Laws ¶12 When interpreting the meaning of statutes, “ ‘[t]he court’s fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.’ ” State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). ¶13 We have repeatedly recognized that the legislature purposefully created the SRA scheme broadly in order to “ ‘ensure that defendants with equivalent prior convictions are treated “the same way, regardless of 2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability of Self-Defense Laws ¶12 When interpreting the meaning of statutes, “ ‘[t]he court’s fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.’ ” State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). ¶13 We have repeatedly recognized that the legislature purposefully created the SRA scheme broadly in order to “ ‘ensure that defendants with equivalent prior convictions are treated “the same way, regardless of | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn
green
2 sentences2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability ofSelf-Defense Laws When interpreting the meaning of statutes, '"[t]he court's fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature's intent."' State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep 't ofEcology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). 2014RCW 9.94A.525(3) Does Not Require Comparability of Self-Defense Laws ¶12 When interpreting the meaning of statutes, “ ‘[t]he court’s fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature’s intent.’ ” State v. Pannell, 173 Wn.2d 222, 226-27 , 267 P.3d 349 (2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). ¶13 We have repeatedly recognized that the legislature purposefully created the SRA scheme broadly in order to “ ‘ensure that defendants with equivalent prior convictions are treated “the same way, regardless of | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Kier
green
2 sentences2011We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language, part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. 2011Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 . [10] We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wash.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences2011We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wn.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wn.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language, part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. 2011Calle, 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 . [10] We note that in State v. Kelley, 168 Wash.2d 72 , 226 P.3d 773 (2010) and State v. Kier, 164 Wash.2d 798 , 194 P.3d 212 (2008), our Supreme Court suggested that clear legislative intent, as gleaned from legislative history, is reviewed in conjunction with the express statutory language part of the comparability analysis, and like express statutory language that legislative history is outcome determinative and overrides the results of the same evidence test. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences2010State v. Johnson, 150 Wn. 2010State v. Johnson, 150 Wash. App. 663, 676 , 208 P.3d 1265 , review denied, 167 Wash.2d 1012 , 220 P.3d 208 (2009). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences2009App. 422, 440 , 16 P.3d 664 (2001). 2008Russell, 104 Wash.App. at 442 , 16 P.3d 664 . ¶ 16 We need not address steps two and three of the comparability analysis because step one has not been satisfied. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences2009Division Three utilized the comparability analysis as articulated by this court’s earlier decision in State v. Russell, 104 Wn. 2008Russell, 104 Wash.App. at 442 , 16 P.3d 664 . ¶ 16 We need not address steps two and three of the comparability analysis because step one has not been satisfied. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Werneth
green
2 sentences2009Next, it considered whether “the Georgia court entered findings of fact which support the additional elements of the Washington offense,” the “factual” prong of the comparability analysis. 12 Werneth, 147 Wn. 2009Next, it considered whether "the Georgia court entered findings of fact which support the additional elements of the Washington offense," the "factual" prong of the comparability analysis. [12] Werneth, 147 Wash.App. at 554 , 197 P.3d 1195 . ¶ 26 The State argued that it had produced the necessary, additional facts at trial to prove comparability. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Hendrickson green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Hendrickson green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Delgado green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| Schweiker v. Hogan green | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. McCorkle green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Mutch green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| In re the Detention of Williams green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| In Re Detention of Williams green | 2 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Weiand green | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Cameron green | 2 | 2000–2000 |
| Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Ammons green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Batson neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Arndt green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Kosanke green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Blake green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Ross green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Ross green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Webb green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State Of Washington v. Tommie Lee Davis neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Labarbera neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Lord green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.