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.
7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2011 0 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences2007Jones, 159 Wn.2d 231 . ¶22 Furthermore, mere speculation that the United States Supreme Court might eventually reject the Almendarez-Torres prior-conviction exception does not justify our rejection of the prior-conviction exception preemptively, as the dissent would have us do. 2007In Jones, the court addressed issues closely related to the identity issue here and concluded that “[t]o give effect to the prior-conviction exception, Washington’s sentencing courts must be allowed as a matter of law to determine not only the fact of a prior conviction but also those facts ‘intimately related to [the] prior conviction.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2005)). ¶20 In Jones, a five-justice majority of our Supreme Court expressly rejected the contention that the Almendarez-Torres prior-convict | 1 | 2 |
State Oil Co. v. Khangreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., id. at 239 n.7 (“Even if we were inclined to agree with the dissent’s unstated assertion that it is only a matter of time before that case is overruled, we are certainly not free to overrule or ignore established Supreme Court precedent.” “ ‘[I]t is [the Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.’ ” (second alteration in original) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S. Ct. 275 , 139 L. 2007See, e.g., id. at 239 n.7 (“Even if we were inclined to agree with the dissent’s unstated assertion that it is only a matter of time before that case is overruled, we are certainly not free to overrule or ignore established Supreme Court precedent.” “ ‘[I]t is [the Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.’ ” (second alteration in original) (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 , 118 S. Ct. 275 , 139 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mooregreen2 sentences2007In Jones, the court addressed issues closely related to the identity issue here and concluded that “[t]o give effect to the prior-conviction exception, Washington’s sentencing courts must be allowed as a matter of law to determine not only the fact of a prior conviction but also those facts ‘intimately related to [the] prior conviction.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2005)). ¶20 In Jones, a five-justice majority of our Supreme Court expressly rejected the contention that the Almendarez-Torres prior-convict 2007In Jones, the court addressed issues closely related to the identity issue here and concluded that “[t]o give effect to the prior-conviction exception, Washington’s sentencing courts must be allowed as a matter of law to determine not only the fact of a prior conviction but also those facts ‘intimately related to [the] prior conviction.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2005)). ¶20 In Jones, a five-justice majority of our Supreme Court expressly rejected the contention that the Almendarez-Torres prior-convict | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ramon E. Santiago, AKA \Yoyo\""green1 sentence2006Super. 126 , 787 A.2d 211, 221 (2001) (“ ‘we read Apprendi as leaving to the judge, consistent with due process, the task of finding not only the mere fact of previous convictions but other related issues as well’ ” (quoting United States v. Santiago, 268 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2001))). ¶20 In sum, contrary to Division One of the Court of Appeals’ and Jones’s and Thomas’s narrow reading of the prior conviction exception, we read the Almendarez-Torres prior conviction exception to encompass facts that follow necessarily or as a matter of law from the fact of a prior conviction, such as the defe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen1 sentence2006Super. 126 , 787 A.2d 211, 221 (2001) (“ ‘we read Apprendi as leaving to the judge, consistent with due process, the task of finding not only the mere fact of previous convictions but other related issues as well’ ” (quoting United States v. Santiago, 268 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir. 2001))). ¶20 In sum, contrary to Division One of the Court of Appeals’ and Jones’s and Thomas’s narrow reading of the prior conviction exception, we read the Almendarez-Torres prior conviction exception to encompass facts that follow necessarily or as a matter of law from the fact of a prior conviction, such as the defe | 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. Thiefault
green
2 sentences2011But where the trial court seeks to impose a sentence that exceeds the one supported by the jury verdict, here the period in excess of 10 years and for the rest of McKague's life, the defendant's right to have his sentence supported by a jury's verdict remains unfulfilled. ¶ 92 The lead opinion also cites a post- Blakely POAA case, State v. Thiefault, 160 Wash.2d 409 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007), and asserts that "[u]ntil such time as our Supreme Court overrules itself, we are bound by its holding on the issue before us here." Lead opinion at 20. 2011But where the trial court seeks to impose a sentence that exceeds the one supported by the jury verdict, here the period in excess of 10 years and for the rest of McKague's life, the defendant's right to have his sentence supported by a jury's verdict remains unfulfilled. ¶ 92 The lead opinion also cites a post- Blakely POAA case, State v. Thiefault, 160 Wash.2d 409 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007), and asserts that "[u]ntil such time as our Supreme Court overrules itself, we are bound by its holding on the issue before us here." Lead opinion at 20. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2007Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . 2007Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2006Jones, 126 Wash.App. at 144 , 107 P.3d 755 . 2006Jones, 126 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
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.