Legal Opinion
State v. Ammons
Washington Supreme Court
Decided June 8, 2005No. 51550-6, 51580-8, 51587-5PublishedCited by 319 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGoodloe, J.
The appellants, Roy Lee Ammons, Dale R. Barton, and Eugene Garrett, challenge the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, RCW 9.94A (hereafter referred to as the SRA), pursuant to which they were sentenced. We hold the SRA is constitutional and affirm their sentences.
The SRA became effective on July 1, 1984. The SRA is a comprehensive sentencing system which establishes a standard presumptive sentencing range for most criminal offenses. The presence and nature of prior convictions determine, in part, the presumptive sentence range. RCW 9.94A.360 and .370.
Because the cases were…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Culombe v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by319 opinions
- Matter of Personal Restraint of YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. ThorneWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. FordWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court · 2000
314 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.