Legal Opinion

State v. Shultz

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1999No. 67776-0PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

— This certified appeal involves 1994 and 1997 amendments to RCW 9.94A.142, a statute authorizing restitution orders pursuant to a criminal conviction. We hold the 1994 and 1997 amendments apply to Shultz’s 1987 restitution order, and they do not violate the ex post facto clauses or due process. We reverse the trial court and remand.

FACTS

On April 21, 1986, Karl Alan Shultz pleaded guilty to 16 counts of arson. Shultz was sentenced on April 7, 1987, *641and his sentence included a restitution order in the amount of $507,131.62, to be paid out to 20 victims of the arsons. Shultz was released from…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Nixon v. Administrator of General ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. State v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. ManussierWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. ManussierWashington Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. State v. VargaWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. VargaWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State v. KinnemanWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. KinnemanWashington Supreme Court · 2005

65 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