# State v. Evans

> Washington Supreme Court · June 16, 2005 · 154 Wash. 2d 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713169

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington v. Michael R. Evans, In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Shawn Swenson
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 16, 2005
- **Citations:** 154 Wash. 2d 438
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sanders
- **Judges:** Alexander, Bridge, Chambers, Fairhurst, Ireland, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Sanders, Tern
- **Cited by:** 116 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713169

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the maximum sentence a judge can impose without finding additional facts for Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, purposes is “the top of the standard sentencing range”
- holding that Teague is ultimately "grounded in important considerations of federal-state relations", and that Teague does not limit a state court's authority to grant post-conviction relief based on a retroactive application of Blakely
- reversing felony murder; jury instruction allowed conviction on murder without finding he personally attempted or committed the robbery if it found he was only an accomplice to theft
- holding Blakely retroactive to date Apprendi decided
- declining to apply Blakely retroactively to cases final on direct review

## Opinion text

¶40 (concurring) — As a matter of logic and principle, I find it difficult to accept one’s constitutional right to a jury trial on sentencing factors may be abridged, without remedy, when the issue is first raised based on new case law in the context of a personal restraint petition. But a slim majority (5-4) of the United States Supreme Court in Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 , 124 S. Ct. 2519 , 159 L. Ed. 2d 442 (2004), seems to say exactly that. What can I do but concur in the decision of our majority?
Sanders, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4713169. Public record. Not legal advice.