Legal Opinion

State v. Ryan

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 31, 1995No. 33607-0-I; 35017-0-I; 34293-2-IPublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.

In this consolidated appeal, Michael Ta-ton and Ronald Ryan ask us to decide whether constitutional and statutory requirements are met when the trial court enters, as part of a criminal sentence, an ex parte order of restitution with the proviso that the defendant may have a restitution hearing if he or she objects to the amount that has been set. We find that restitution was not determined within mandatory time limits in the present cases and vacate the order of restitution entered with respect to Taton. Because Ryan acknowledged part of the restitution set in connection with his crimes, we…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. KrallWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. ZakelWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. TindalCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  4. State v. RaleighCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  5. State v. PockertCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. MoenWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. HenningsWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. HenningsWashington Supreme Court · 1996

14 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