9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 4 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 Of Washington v. Hailu Dagnew Mandeferogreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (“The trial court is in the best position to most effectively determine if prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”) (quoting State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 701 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995)). 16 No. 86169-7-I court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. Mandefero, 14 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stensongreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (“The trial court is in the best position to most effectively determine if prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”) (quoting State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 701 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995)). 16 No. 86169-7-I court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. Mandefero, 14 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Luvenegreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (“The trial court is in the best position to most effectively determine if prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”) (quoting State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 701 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995)). 16 No. 86169-7-I court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. Mandefero, 14 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stensongreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (“The trial court is in the best position to most effectively determine if prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”) (quoting State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 701 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995)). 16 No. 86169-7-I court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. Mandefero, 14 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Luvenegreen1 sentence2024See State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 719 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997) (“The trial court is in the best position to most effectively determine if prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”) (quoting State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 701 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995)). 16 No. 86169-7-I court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. Mandefero, 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McGill
green
2 sentences2025App. 95, 100 , 47 P.3d 173 (2002) (quoting Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. 2024App. 95, 100 , 47 P.3d 173 (2002)). | 7 | 2017–2025 |
State v. McGill
green
2 sentences2025A discretionary sentence within the standard range is reviewable in “‘circumstances where the court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.’” State v. McGill, 112 Wn. 2024“A discretionary sentence within the standard range is reviewable in ‘circumstances where the court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.’ ” State v. 5 No. 84900-0-I/6 McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47 , 56, 399 P.3d 1106 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McGill, 112 Wn. | 7 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Garcia-Martinez
green
2 sentences2025App. 95, 100 , 47 P.3d 173 (2002) (quoting Garcia-Martinez, 88 Wn. 2023When a defendant appeals a discretionary sentence within the standard range, our review is limited to those “circumstances where the court has refused to exercise discretion at all or has relied on an impermissible basis for refusing to impose an exceptional sentence below the standard range.” State v. McFarland, 189 Wn.2d 47 , 56, 399 P.3d 1106 (2017) (adopting the language of State v. Garcia- Martinez, 88 Wn. | 4 | 2017–2025 |
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.