Legal Opinion

State v. Pillatos

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 2007No. Nos. 75984-7; 75989-8; 76081-1; 76077-2PublishedCited by 135 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*465¶1 — We originally took review of these cases to decide whether, in the wake of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), juries in Washington could be asked to find facts that might justify an upwards departure from standard-range sentences. Shortly after the initial oral argument, the Washington State Legislature amended the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW, to explicitly give juries this responsibility. Laws of 2005, ch. 68.1 We permitted additional argument and briefing to aid us in determining whether this new act applies to any…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  3. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

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

3Cited by135 opinions

  1. State v. WomacWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. WomacWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. MutchWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. GambleWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State v. GambleWashington Supreme Court · 2010

130 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