finding no prosecutorial vindictiveness where the State charged 16 additional counts with a standard range of over 100 years’ confinement after defendant withdrew from plea agreement in which he would plead guilty to two charges totaling 15 years’ confinement
How later courts described this case
- finding no prosecutorial vindictiveness where the State charged 16 additional counts with a standard range of over 100 years’ confinement after defendant withdrew from plea agreement in which he would plead guilty to two charges totaling 15 years’ confinement
- declining to consider an issue not raised by the State in the argument section of its answer
- objecting to evidence in trial court on one ground does not preserve objection for appeal based on different grounds
- finding no vindictiveness where State filed 16 additional felony charges after defendant withdrew guilty plea
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
¶150
Owens, J.
(concurring in part with C. Johnson, J.) — While I have signed the majority opinion, I agree with Justice Charles Johnson’s main argument in his concurrence in dissent. A different approach for sentencing is required under RCW 9.94A.535(l)(g). I also agree that sentencing courts applying RCW 9.94A.535(l)(g) should make a complete record to facilitate appellate review.