State v. Goss

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Yancey

    418 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Interpreting State v . Mohamed, 187 Wash. App. 630, 350 P.3d 671

    The exceptional sentence authority cannot be used in conjunction with an alternative DOSA sentence. State v. Onefrey , 119 Wash.2d 572, 576-77, 835 P.2d 213 (1992) ; Murray , 128 Wash. App. at 726, 116 P.3d 1072 ; State v. Goss , 56 Wash. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). It likewise cannot be used to make someone eligible for an alternative sentence, since the legislature is the body with the power to determine eligibility.

  2. State v. Miller

    180 Wn. App. 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 15 times

    .RCW 9.94A.670(2).State v. Goss, 56 Wash.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985)).

  3. State v. Miller

    314 P.3d 442 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)

    .RCW 9.94A.670(2).State v. Goss, 56 Wash.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting D. Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985)).

  4. State v. Sims

    171 Wn. 2d 436 (Wash. 2011)   Cited 57 times
    Holding the State could not challenge the criminal defendant's sentence as a whole when it did not cross-appeal and the defendant appealed only a single sentencing condition

    A more comparable case from the Court of Appeals is State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). In Goss, the trial court ordered that the conditions of the defendant's SSOSA should run consecutively, but the Court of Appeals found that the law required that the conditions run concurrently.

  5. State v. Onefrey

    119 Wn. 2d 572 (Wash. 1992)   Cited 27 times
    In State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 835 P.2d 213(1992), the supreme court held that the court did not have the authority to impose more than two years of treatment and supervision under a SSOSA, former RCW 9.94A.120(7).

    [2] This court has never addressed the question presented here: whether an exceptional sentence may be imposed in conjunction with SSOSA. However, in State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked discretion under SSOSA to order that the conditions of a suspended sentence run consecutively. The court reasoned:

  6. State v. Free

    No. 74222-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2017)

    The "SSOSA was created because it was believed that for certain first-time sexual offenders, 'requiring participation in rehabilitation programs is likely to prove effective in preventing future criminality.'" Miller, 180 Wn.App. at 417 (quoting State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990) (quoting David Boerner, Sentencing in Washington ยง 2.5(c) (1985))). A SSOSA may be revoked at any time during the period of community custody and the sentence reinstated if there is sufficient evidence to convince the trial court that the offender has either "violated a condition of the suspended sentence or failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment."

  7. State v. Binh Thai Tran

    No. 73913-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2016)

    SSOSA was created on the belief that required participation in rehabilitation programs "'is likely to prove effective in preventing future criminality'" for certain first-time sexual offenders.State v. Miller, 180 Wn.App. 413, 417, 325 P.3d 230 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990)), review denied. 181 Wn.2d 1022 (2014), cert, denied, 135 S.Ct. 1555, 191 L.Ed.2d 646 (2015).

  8. State v. Ingram

    No. 30302-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2013)

    The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). An offender is eligible for a SSOSA if all the criteria listed in RCW 9.94A.670(2) are met. RCW 9.94A.670.

  9. State v. Wilkins

    No. 29909-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2013)

    The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn.App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990). Webster's dictionary defines "favorable" as "expressing approval" and "indicative of a successful outcome."

  10. State v. McInally

    125 Wn. App. 1018 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 19 times

    The SSOSA provision "was intended to be used for those offenders who had committed less serious crimes and who were thought to be amenable to treatment." State v. Goss, 56 Wn. App. 541, 544, 784 P.2d 194 (1990); see also State v. Onefrey, 119 Wn.2d 572, 576-77, 835 P.2d 213 (1992). The legislature in RCW 9.94A.670 established the requirements that must be met for a sex offender to be eligible for a SSOSA: