79 Wash. App. 569 - State v. Calvert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 state decisions

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In order to reverse a sentence below the standard range, the appellate court must find either (1) that the sentencing judge's reasons are not supported by the record, (2) that those reasons do not justify a sentence below the standard range, or (3) that the sentence imposed is clearly too lenient. Under the first prong, we determine whether the reasons are clearly erroneous in light of the record.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Wash. App. 327 - State v. Kinneman · State v. Kinneman

2. “I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant has no prior criminal history, is extremely remorseful, has cooperated with the authorities, and is at virtually no risk of reoffending. 2. Defendant was convicted of [67] counts of theft by embezzlement. Pursuant to the multiple offense policy of RCW 9.94A.400,[ 7 ] the minimum standard range sentence for those multiple convictions is 43 months. 3. The multiple counts of theft resulted from a single plan or scheme to make personal use of funds transferred to defendant in his role as escrow agent for Option One. The funds were to be used in refinancing five parcels of real property owned by Rodney Brown. 4. At the time of the thefts, defendant was a practicing attorney whose marriage and law practice were failing. Defendant was clinically depressed and contemplated suicide. 5. Although the thefts occurred at a difficult period in defendant’s life, he accepts full responsibility for his bad decision to make personal use of the escrow funds. In recognition of the nature of his misconduct, defendant voluntarily gave up his license to practice law. 6. Defendant is eligible for sentencing under the first time offender option, but the court does not find that to be an appropriate option in this case. 7. In a factual sense, all the counts of theft resulted from the same course of conduct. Each count reflected a single withdrawal from, or check drawn upon, the same escrow fund account. 8. The cumulative effect of the [67] separate crimes was virtually”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 120 Wash. App. 327 - State v. Kinneman

3. “Whether a given presumptive sentence is clearly excessive in light of the purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 [(SRA) ] is not a subjective determination dependent upon the individual sentencing philosophy of a given judge. Rather, it is an objective inquiry based on the Legislatures own stated purposes for the act. See RCW 9.94A.010 (setting forth the purpose of the SRA). Sanchez holds that a presumptive sentence calculated in accord with the multiple offense policy is clearly excessive if the difference between the effects of the first criminal act and the cumulative effects of the subsequent criminal acts is nonexistent, trivial or trifling. We fully agree. The purposes of the SRA include ensuring punishments that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offenders criminal history, promoting respect for the law by providing punishment which is just, encouraging commensurate punishments for offenders who commit similar offenses, protecting the public, offering the offender an opportunity for self-improvement and making frugal use of the States resources. RCW 9.94A.010.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kinneman