State v. Hagar
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
¶1
C. Johnson, J.
This court is asked to determine if a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and who stipulates to “real facts” for sentencing purposes may successfully pursue a Blakely1 challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed Howard Hagar’s conviction, holding he did not make a showing that the plea bargains were divisible from the stipulations, as required by State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 402, 69 P.3d 338 (2003). Because we find a Blakely violation occurred during sentencing, we reverse Hagar’s sentence and remand to the trial court for sentencing within the standard…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Washington v. RecuencoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. FloresWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. FloresWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. SaltzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- State v. SaltzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- State v. LarkinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.