66 Wash. App. 631 - State v. Vike’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lane v. Peterson · 109 Wash. 2d 207 - State v. Dunaway · 109 Wash. 2d 947 - Allingham v. City of Seattle · 114 Wash. 2d 6 - State v. Elliott · 118 Wash. 2d 773 - State v. Lessley
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wlhenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the sentence range for each current offense shall be determined by using all other current and prior convictions as if they were prior convictions for the purpose of the offender score: PROVIDED, That if the court enters a finding that some or all of the current offenses encompass the same criminal conduct then those current offenses shall be counted as one crime. . . . "Same criminal conduct,” as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“both crimes must involve: (1) the same objective criminal intent, which can be measured by determining whether one crime furthered another; (2) the same time and place; and (3) the same victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“under RCW 9 .94A.400(l)(a) and thus should have been treated as one offense for sentencing. For two crimes to constitute the same criminal conduct under RCW 9 .94A.400(l)(a),”
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.