State v. Gray

56 Citing cases

  1. State v. Barbee

    No. 96490-4 (Wash. Jul. 3, 2019)

    "The time limit is mandatory unless extended for good cause." State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 925, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012). To determine whether the second restitution award in this case complied with the statutory time limit, we must decide whether the statute directs us to measure timeliness from Barbee's initial sentencing hearing in 2013, as Barbee contends, or his resentencing hearing in 2017, as the State contends.

  2. State v. Barbee

    193 Wash. 2d 581 (Wash. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "The time limit is mandatory unless extended for good cause." State v. Gray, 174 Wash.2d 920, 925, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012). ¶9 To determine whether the second restitution award in this case complied with the statutory time limit, we must decide whether the statute directs us to measure timeliness from Barbee’s initial sentencing hearing in 2013, as Barbee contends, or his resentencing hearing in 2017, as the State contends.

  3. State v. Peeler

    183 Wn. 2d 169 (Wash. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 31 We review statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Gray, 174 Wash.2d 920, 926, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012). The objective in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and carry out the legislature's intent.

  4. State v. L.L.L.

    No. 43771-6-II (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2013)

    Despite the clear mandatory language of RCW 13.40.190, LLL argues that the juvenile court had discretion to impose or not to impose restitution and to set the amount of restitution, citing State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 924, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012), and State v. Hunotte, 69 Wn.App. 670, 674, 851 P.2d 694 (1993). But Gray does not assist LLL's argument because that opinion addressed RCW 9.94A.753, the restitution statute applicable to sentencing in adult criminal offenses, and not RCW 13.40.190, the juvenile restitution statute at issue here. 174 Wn.2d at 924. And unlike the juvenile restitution statute, RCW 9.94A.753 contains permissive language that "grants trial courts 'broad power' to order and modify restitution." Gray, 174 Wn.2d at 925 (quoting State v. Enstone, 137 Wn.2d 675, 679, 974 P.2d 828 (1999)).

  5. State v. Pratt

    No. 55721-5-II (Wash. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2022)

    State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 926, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012).

  6. State v. Long

    21 Wn. App. 2d 238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    A trial court's decision to impose restitution is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Gray, 174 Wash.2d 920, 924, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012). However, the trial court's interpretation of the restitution statute is an issue this court reviews de novo.

  7. State v. Herrera

    10 Wn. App. 2d 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)

    The trial court's authority to order restitution derives from statutory provisions. State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 924, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012). RCW 9.94A.753(5) states, "Restitution shall be ordered whenever the offender is convicted of an offense which results in injury to any person or damage to or loss of property" absent extraordinary circumstances.

  8. State v. Barbee

    5 Wn. App. 2d 1032 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    "Plain meaning is to be discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole." State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 927, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012) (citing State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009)). If, after reviewing the plain meaning of the statute, the statute is unambiguous, then the "court's inquiry is at an end." State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007).

  9. State v. Loutzenhiser

    No. 33136-9-III (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2016)

    A trial court determining the amount of restitution may either rely on a defendant's admission or acknowledgment of the amount of restitution or it may determine the amount by a preponderance of evidence. State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920, 926 n.4, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012)

  10. State v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n

    334 P.3d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    City of Seattle, 160 Wash.App. at 388, 249 P.3d 650 (quoting Renton Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 101 Wash.2d 435, 441, 680 P.2d 40 (1984) ).State v. Gray, 174 Wash.2d 920, 926, 280 P.3d 1110 (2012).ANALYSIS