Legal Opinion

State v. Hagar

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 2006No. 77138-3PublishedCited by 17 opinions

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

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Washington v. RecuencoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. HughesWashington Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. FloresWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. FloresWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State v. SaltzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  4. State v. SaltzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. State v. LarkinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

12 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