55 Wash. App. 573 - State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway · 106 Wash. 2d 514 - State v. Nordby · 109 Wash. 2d 947 - Allingham v. City of Seattle · 108 Wash. 2d 419 - State v. Fisher · 106 Wash. 2d 525 - State v. Oxborrow
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One of the overriding purposes of the sentencing reform act is to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the crime committed and the defendant's criminal history. RCW 9.94A.010(1). This purpose would be frustrated if a court were required to blind itself to a significant portion of a defendant's juvenile criminal record. .. . Such an interpretation of the sentencing reform act would operate to erase from the record the true circumstances of an offender's past, thus precluding the trial court from evaluating what might be one of the most significant aspects of an offender's personality.... Society is entitled to view the long-term repeater of crimes from an early age as a greater threat and as requiring longer institutional supervision than one whose criminal proclivities are not as deeply ingrained. The court also correctly concluded that the defendant here would not be doubly penalized if these crimes were considered in imposing an exceptional sentence, since they are not part of the standard range calculation. The fact that pre-age-15 felonies are not among the SRA's listed "aggravating circumstances" ( see RCW 9.94A.390) is not determinative. The SRA explicitly states that the listed [aggravating and mitigating] factors are illustrative only and not exclusive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The standard to be used when determining whether a case should be remanded for resentencing is if the appellate court deems the invalidated facts to be facts upon which the trial court placed considerable weight in determining the sentence, then remand is necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[fjacts that establish the elements of . . . additional crimes may not be used to go outside the presumptive sentence range except . . . when specifically provided for in RCW 9.94A.390(2)(c), (d), and (e).”
1 later decision 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.