first sentencing hearing in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Douglas Crooked Armgreen ca9 · 2017 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023United States v. Crooked Arm, 853 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017).	1	1
State v. Harrisongreen wash · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004Id. at 554-55.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Mannhalt neutral washctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2003Relying on State v. Mannhalt, 68 Wash. App. 757, 760 , 845 P.2d 1023 (1992), the State contends that the breach of a plea agreement does not mean Harrison is entitled to relitigate every issue already decided, particularly where the issue he wants to revisit is unrelated to the beach. 2003Relying on State v. Mannhalt, 68 Wn.	2	2003–2003
King County v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets green wash · 2016 1 sentence 2017The State was referring to City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 , 380 P.3d 459 (2016), which had been decided in the interim since the first sentencing hearing.	1	2017–2017
City of Richland v. Wakefield green wash · 2016 1 sentence 2017The State was referring to City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 , 380 P.3d 459 (2016), which had been decided in the interim since the first sentencing hearing.	1	2017–2017
State v. Morales green washctapp · 2012 1 sentence 2013R e); 525( 4A.2) 2)( imposed the ( 9 wrongly statutory maximum confinement term plus a community custody term; and ( ) 3 wrongly excluded testimony that he had used an asthma inhaler on the day of his arrest., The State asserts that the Morales opinion' "force[s]" concede the first sentencing error (miscalculated offender it to score); the State concedes the second sentencing exceeded statutory maximum). error ( We reject the State's forced concession" of sentencing error based on Morales, adopt most ( ut not " b all) of Division One's rationale in Morales, and accept the State's second conces	1	2013–2013
State v. Harrison green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2004Id. at 554-55, 61 P.3d 1104 .	1	2004–2004
State v. Freitag green wash · 1995 2 sentences 1997State v. Freitag, 127 Wash.2d 141 , 896 P.2d 1254 (1995). [3] Although the trial court found that the Defendant had no "prior contacts with the police," the relevant fact is that she had no misdemeanor convictions or adjudications of juvenile offenses. 1997State v. Freitag, 127 Wash.2d 141 , 896 P.2d 1254 (1995). [3] Although the trial court found that the Defendant had no "prior contacts with the police," the relevant fact is that she had no misdemeanor convictions or adjudications of juvenile offenses.	1	1997–1997
State v. Harris green wash · 1960 2 sentences 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made. 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made.	1	1966–1966
State v. Baforo neutral wash · 1928 2 sentences 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made. 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made.	1	1966–1966
State v. Jessing neutral wash · 1954 2 sentences 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made. 1966State v. Harris, 57 Wn.2d 383 , 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wn.2d 458 , 268 P.2d 639 (1954); State v. Baforo, 146 Wash. 312 , 262 Pac. 964 (1928). 3 When, at the first sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended a sentence to the institution, he had breached his own promise- upon which the plea of guilty had been made.	1	1966–1966

Where else courts name it

OH 28 (2003–2025) IL 20 (1980–2025) CA 17 (1986–2025) FL 11 (1987–2019) AL 11 (1990–1994) WA 9 (1966–2023) TX 9 (1972–2010) MI 7 (1970–2025) IN 6 (1995–2020) PA 4 (2004–2026) TN 3 (2002–2006) NC 3 (1985–1997) AZ 2 (2006–2023) WI 2 (2001–2024) UT 2 (2016–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check