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.
11 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Argo
green
2 sentences2025State v. Argo, 81 Wn. 2023State v. Argo, 81 Wn. | 3 | 2015–2025 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2018In addition, we note that even if Hill had been misadvised regarding his score, he would still not be entitled to withdraw his plea because his score is far above 9 and the alleged scoring error would have no effect on his standard range.12 9 State v. King, 162 Wn. 2018In addition, we note that even if Hill had been misadvised regarding his score, he would still not be entitled to withdraw his plea because his score is far above 9 and the alleged scoring error would have no effect on his standard range.19 8 State v. Kino, 162 Wn. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Arndt
green
2 sentences2018App. at 241 . 10 State v. Arndt, 179 Wn. 2018App. at 241 . 9 State v. Arndt, 179 Wn. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Fowler
green
1 sentence2021When imposing sentence under that subsection, courts are required to include each other current offense in the offender score unless one or more of those offenses constitute the same criminal conduct, in which case they shall be “counted as one crime.” The statute then defines that particular exception to the scoring rule: “‘Same criminal conduct,’ as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Junker
green
1 sentence2019When imposing sentence under that subsection, courts are required to include each other current offense in the offender score unless one or more of those offenses constitute the same criminal conduct, in which case they shall be “counted as one crime.” The statute then defines that particular exception to the scoring rule: “‘Same criminal conduct,’ as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Dunaway
green
2 sentences2018State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d 207, 215 , 743 P.2d 1237 (1987). 2018State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d 207, 215 , 743 P.2d 1237 (1987). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sexsmith
green
1 sentence2018When imposing sentence under that subsection, courts are required to include each other current offense in the offender score unless one or more of those offenses constitute the same criminal conduct, in which case they shall be “counted as one crime.” The statute then defines that particular exception to the scoring rule: “‘Same criminal conduct,’ as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Latham
green
1 sentence2018App. 390, 398 , 335 P.3d 960 (2014). 11 This citation is to the clerk's papers in No. 76942-1. 5 No. 76945-6-1 In addition, we note that even if Hill had been misadvised regarding his score, he would still not be entitled to withdraw his plea because his score is far above 9 and the alleged scoring error would have no effect on his standard range.12 The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill's motion to withdraw his pleas. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Todd
green
1 sentence2016When imposing sentence under that subsection, courts are required to include each other current offense in the offender score unless one or more of those offenses constitute the same criminal conduct, in which case they shall be "counted as one crime." The statute then defines that particular exception to the scoring rule: "' Same criminal conduct,' as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are 12 No. 32873-2-III State v. McFarland committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim." Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.