Legal Opinion

State Of Washington, Resp. v. Brandon M. Bigsby, App.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 28, 2016No. 73905-1-IPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpearman, J.

¶1 Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, a trial court has authority to enforce the requirements of sentences that it imposes. The trial court sanctioned Brandon Bigsby for failing to meet a sentence requirement. Bigsby challenges the sanction, arguing that because he was on community custody under the supervision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), only DOC had authority to sanction him. But, because the trial court also had authority to impose sanctions, we affirm.

FACTS

¶2 Bigsby pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Sorenson v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State v. EngelWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. EngelWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Diamond v. CrossWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Millay v. CamWashington Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. BigsbyWashington Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State v. BigsbyWashington Supreme Court · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API