Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.340 (2026)

Equal application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The sentencing guidelines and prosecuting standards apply equally to offenders in all parts of the state, without discrimination as to any element that does not relate to the crime or the previous record of the defendant.
[ 1983 c 115 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 30× “” RCW 9.94A.340. In adopting this sentencing requirement, the legislature provided the only basis on which discrimination is allowed: any element that relates to the crime or previous record.”
State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 30× “" RCW 9.94A.340. In adopting this sentencing requirement, the legislature provided the only basis on which discrimination is allowed: any element that relates to the crime or previous record.”
State v. Ramos, 387 P.3d 650 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 2× “onsistent with Washington law regarding the permissible scope of potential mitigating circumstances ¶49 Ramos also argues that Washington law regarding the scope of mitigating evidence that may be considered in deciding whether to impose an exceptional downward sentence imposes…”
State v. Osman, 139 P.3d 334 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 3× “" RCW 9.94A.340. ¶ 10 Generally, a defendant cannot appeal a sentence within the standard range; however, the prohibition is not absolute.”
State of Washington v. Daniel Herbert Dunbar, 532 P.3d 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “The State cites RCW 9.94A.340, which declares: The sentencing guidelines and prosecuting standards apply equally to offenders in all parts of the state, without discrimination as to any element that does not relate to the crime or the previous record of the defendant.”
State v. Osman, 126 Wash. App. 575 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “¶7 On appeal, Osman asserts that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of RCW 9.94A.340 and violated his equal protection rights when it denied his SSOSA request and imposed a standard range sentence.”
State Of Washington, V Guadalupe Solis Diaz, 376 P.3d 458 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d at 847 ] (quoting RCW 9.94A.340); that it is far more likely to diminish a defendant’s culpability than this court implied in Ha’mim; and that youth can, therefore, amount to a substantial and compelling factor, in particular cases, justifying a sentence below the standard…”
State v. Schwartz, 450 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “" RCW 9.94A.340. Precluding a conviction from washing 13 State V.”
People v. Fields, 528 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “" RCW 9.94A.340. [ Id. at 624. Citations omitted.”
State v. Thorne, 921 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1996). “” RCW 9.94A.340. Sentences are determined based on the seriousness level of the crime committed and on the prior convictions of the defendant.”
State v. Roberts, 894 P.2d 1340 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “This holding is consistent with the requirements of RCW 9.94A.340, as a lack of predisposition to commit the crime may be a factor relating to the crime itself.”
State Of Washington v. Brian Ronquillo, 361 P.3d 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “(quoting RCW 9.94A.340); that it is far more likely to diminish a defendant’s culpability than this court implied in Ha’mim; and that youth can, therefore, amount to a substantial and compelling factor, in particular cases, justifying a sentence below the standard range.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.