Washington Supreme Court· 11/6/2003

State v. Baldwin

Citations

150 Wash. 2d 448

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that because “nothing in these [sentencing] guideline statutes requires a certain outcome, the statutes create no constitutionally protectable liberty interest”
stating that Washington’s sentencing guidelines were not susceptible to a vagueness challenge because they “do not define conduct nor do they allow for arbitrary arrest and criminal prosecution by the State”
stating that Washington’s sentencing guidelines were not susceptible to a vagueness challenge because they “do not define conduct nor do they allow for arbitrary arrest and criminal prosecution by the State”
overruling a case because it was incorrect, but also briefly noting that it was harmful
noting that the former aggravating factors do not “inform the public of the penalties attached to a criminal conduct nor do they vary the statutory maximum 15 No. 80849-4-I/16 and minimum penalties assigned to illegal conduct by the legislature.”
overruling a case because it was incorrect but also briefly noting that it was harmful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alexander, Bridge, Chambers, Fairhurst, Ireland, Johnson, Madsen, Owens, Sanders

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.