Legal Opinion

State v. Ramirez

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 2018No. 95249-3PublishedCited by 460 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

*716 *734 ¶ 1 In State v. Blazina , 182 Wash.2d 827 , 839, 344 P.3d 680 (2015), we held that under former RCW 10.01.160(3) (2015), trial courts have an obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary legal *735 financial obligations (LFOs) at sentencing. This case provides an opportunity to more fully describe the nature of such an inquiry. An adequate inquiry must include consideration of the mandatory factors set forth in Blazina , including the defendant's incarceration and other debts, and the court rule GR 34 criteria…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. StensonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. StensonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. BlazinaWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Aetna Life Insurance v. Washington Life & Disability Insurance Guaranty Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  5. State v. BlankWashington Supreme Court · 1997

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by460 opinions

  1. State Of Washington, V William Edward LundstromCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  2. State v. CatlingWashington Supreme Court · 2019
  3. State Of Washington v. Anthony G. HouckCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  4. State Of Washington v. Lucien J. ThibodeauxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  5. State of Washington v. Scott Alexis CasimiroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019

455 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API