Legal Opinion

State v. Gray

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 2012No. 86359-8PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.

¶1 RCW 9.94A.753(1) requires a court to “determine the amount of restitution due at the sentencing hearing or within one hundred eighty days.” RCW 9.94A-.753(4) authorizes a court to modify the amount of restitution “during any period of time the offender remains under the court’s jurisdiction.” At issue in this case is whether RCW 9.94A.753(4) permits a court to modify a restitution order more than 180 days after sentencing to include expenses that were incurred before the trial court issued its original restitution order. We hold that the plain language of RCW 9.94A.753(4) clearly…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. JacobsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. ArmendarizWashington Supreme Court · 2007

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. State v. BoyleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. State v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State v. SlattumCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  4. State v. MehrabianCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  5. City of Seattle v. FullerWashington Supreme Court · 2013

40 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