State Of Washington, Resp. v. Brandon M. Bigsby, App.
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Sorenson v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1972
- State v. EngelWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. EngelWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- Diamond v. CrossWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Millay v. CamWashington Supreme Court · 1998
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. BigsbyWashington Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. BigsbyWashington Supreme Court · 2017