State v. Kinneman
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 Madsen, J.
Zachary Kinneman, an attorney, was convicted of 67 counts of theft in connection with real estate transactions that he handled for a client. Kinneman raises several challenges to an order of restitution, including the question whether Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000) and Blakely v. *275Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), apply to restitution under RCW 9.94A.753.1 We conclude that Apprendi and. Blakely do not apply and affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision on the remaining issues.
FACTS
¶2 Mr. Kinneman was a…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- State v. AmmonsWashington Supreme Court · 2005
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by77 opinions
- Dix v. ICT Group, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Dix v. ICT Group, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. TobinWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court · 2008
72 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.