117 Wash. 2d 701 - State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably 121 Wash. 2d 22 - State v. Riley (1993), 119 Wash. 2d 401 - State v. Strauss (1992)
99 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Barefoot v. Estelle · 90 Wash. 2d 443 - State v. Workman · 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 109 Wash. 2d 947 - Allingham v. City of Seattle
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining any sentence, the trial court may rely on no more information than is admitted by the plea agreement, or admitted, acknowledged, or proved in a trial or at the time of sentencing. Acknowledgment includes not objecting to information stated in the presentence reports. Where the defendant disputes material facts, the court must either not consider the fact or grant an evidentiary hearing on the point. The facts shall be deemed proved at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts that establish the elements of a more serious crime or additional crimes may not be used to go outside the standard sentence range except upon stipulation or when specifically provided for in RCW 9.94A.390(2)(d), (e), (g), and (h).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“violates the certain purposes of sentencing reform. It disrupts the proportionality policy of imposing sentences in accordance with the seriousness of the crime and the criminal record. Finally, it allows too broad a grant of discretion to the sentencing judge, which discretion the Legislature intended to limit.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“At the time the SRA was enacted, the Superior Court Judges Association recommended sex offenders be treated differently from other offenders due to their belief that a sex offender's behavior was compulsive and likely to continue without treatment. See [David] Boerner, [ SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON, ] at 8-2 [1985]. The options created for sexual offenders were authorized "because it was believed that for these groups of offenders, requiring participation in rehabilitation programs is likely to prove effective in preventing future criminality." D. Boerner, at 2-37.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.