holding that although two of the sentencing court's three reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence were invalid, remand for resentencing was not necessary because the court explicitly indicated it would impose the same sentence for any one of the reasons standing alone
Summary of this case from State v. Argo1993
holding that although two of the sentencing court's three reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence were invalid, remand for resentencing was not necessary because the court explicitly indicated it would impose the same sentence for any one of the reasons standing alone
Summary of this case from State v. Argonoting there are many cases upholding exceptional sentences of double the presumptive range
Summary of this case from State v. RandollFull title:DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW[fn†
Court:The Supreme Court of Washington
Date published: Jan 1, 1993
Reversal is only required when there is a substantial likelihood that the misconduct affected the jury's…
State v. Vandervorte counsel's integrity when he states that defense counsel is using deception or dishonesty. See id. at 433…