exceptional sentencing factors in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2010 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.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

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 (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hughes red wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	6	2007–2010
Washington v. Recuenco green scotus · 2006 2 sentences 2010App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 , 2010App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	6	2007–2010
State v. Hughes red wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	6	2007–2010
State v. Ose green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	4	2008–2010
State v. Ose green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	4	2008–2010
In re the Personal Restraint of VanDelft green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	4	2008–2010
In Re Personal Restraint of VanDelft green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under 1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d 2010*App. at 786-87 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wn.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 ] (2007). [10] Additionally, under State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wn.2d 118, 133-37 , 110 P3d 192 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 ,	4	2008–2010
State v. Hilyard green washctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2007State v. Hilyard, 63 Wn. 2007State v. Hilyard, 63 Wash.App. 413, 417 , 819 P.2d 809 (1991).	2	2007–2007
State v. McNeal green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under *1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d	1	2010–2010
State v. McNeal green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2010Accepting the State's concession, McNeal II, 142 Wash. App. at 786-87 , 175 P.3d 1139 , the majority of the panel held: In In re Personal Restraint of VanDelft, our Supreme Court held that a jury, rather than the sentencing court, must find the exceptional sentencing factors supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). 158 Wash.2d 731, 743-44 , 147 P.3d 573 (2006), cert. denied, [ 550 U.S. 980 , 127 S.Ct. 2876 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1172 ] (2007).[ [10] ] Additionally, under *1270 State v. Ose, 156 Wash.2d 140, 149 , 124 P.3d 635 (2005), and State v. Hughes, 154 Wash.2d	1	2010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.537 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.525 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check