State v. McCraw

Supreme Court of Washington · Decided 1995-07-20

Cited by 102 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Talmadge, J. (dissenting) — I dissent. The majority’s opinion ignores the unambiguous legislative history of RCW 9.94A.360(6)(a), and adopts a strained analysis resulting in consequences that run completely counter to the specific purposes of the statute. Under the majority’s opinion, trial courts will now have unfettered discretion, subject to no standard, to group prior sentences for purposes of scoring criminal histories. The a…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.