7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2023 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.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Postsentence Review of Leach
green
2 sentences2018In Leach, the Supreme Court held that including a completed crime on a list of crimes eligible for community custody did not mean that the attempt to commit that crime also was eligible. 161 Wn.2d at 185-87 . 2018In Leach , the Supreme Court held that including a completed crime on a list of crimes eligible for community custody did not mean that the attempt to commit that crime also was eligible. 161 Wash.2d at 185 -87 , 163 P.3d 782 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2010Contrary to the State's argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. [4] ¶ 17 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and, not a factual error. "[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using the correct offender score." Ross, 152 Wash.2d at 228 , 95 P.3d 1225 (citing State v. For 2010Contrary to the State’s argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. 4 ¶19 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and not a factual error. “[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using a correct offender score.” Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 228 (citing State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 485 , | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences2010Contrary to the State's argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. [4] ¶ 17 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and, not a factual error. "[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using the correct offender score." Ross, 152 Wash.2d at 228 , 95 P.3d 1225 (citing State v. For 2010Contrary to the State’s argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. 4 ¶19 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and not a factual error. “[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using a correct offender score.” Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 228 (citing State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 485 , | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2010Contrary to the State's argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. [4] ¶ 17 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and, not a factual error. "[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using the correct offender score." Ross, 152 Wash.2d at 228 , 95 P.3d 1225 (citing State v. For 2010Contrary to the State’s argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. 4 ¶19 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and not a factual error. “[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using a correct offender score.” Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 228 (citing State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 485 , | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ward
green
1 sentence2023The Court expressly rejected petitioner’s argument that the evidence was insufficient because it “established no more than an attempted violation.” Ward, 148 Wn.2d at 815-16 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Postsentence Review of Leach
green
1 sentence2018In Leach , the Supreme Court held that including a completed crime on a list of crimes eligible for community custody did not mean that the attempt to commit that crime also was eligible. 161 Wash.2d at 185 -87 , 163 P.3d 782 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2010Contrary to the State's argument, in this case no facts must be acknowledged, or compared, to determine whether a Washington conviction is a felony conviction and whether there is no dispute that the attempted violation of the UCSA is a gross misdemeanor. [4] ¶ 17 We agree with Wilson that prior conviction classifications are legal questions, and so an erroneously scored prior conviction presents a legal error and, not a factual error. "[T]he remedy for a miscalculated offender score is resentencing using the correct offender score." Ross, 152 Wash.2d at 228 , 95 P.3d 1225 (citing State v. For | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Humphrey v. Cady
green
2 sentences1980Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 , 31 L. 1980Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 , 31 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State ex rel. Cook v. Fairley
neutral
2 sentences1931Cook v. Fairley, 45 Wash. 52 , 87 Pac. 1052 , in which, referring to a situation very similar to that here presented, this court said: “Nor did the proceedings had in the condemnation proceeding, as detailed above, constitute a defense. 1931Cook v. Fairley, 45 Wash. 52 , 87 Pac. 1052 , in which, referring to a situation very similar to that here presented, this court said: “Nor did the proceedings had in the condemnation proceeding, as detailed above, constitute a defense. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.