Case Citator › State v. Houston-Sconiers

State v. Houston-Sconiers

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
188 Wash. 2d 1
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
2023
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. Houston-Sconiers has been limited on collateral review: all 45 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed limit is listed below. The Washington Supreme Court held that its substantive sentencing rule applies retroactively, while its procedural requirements do not.
More on how this was screened

Opinions addressing adult offenders applied the decision's stated scope; references to overruling generally described Houston-Sconiers' own treatment of State v. Brown.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

45 later cases cite State v. Houston-Sconiers; 45 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Houston-Sconiers?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • Only Houston-Sconiers's substantive sentencing rule applies retroactively on collateral review; its procedural requirements do not.

    In re Personal Restraint of Hinton · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    Those cases recognize that Houston-Sconiers’s substantive rule—and only its substantive rule—applies ... retroactively on collateral review. Yet Hinton focuses much of his argument on his sentencing court’s failure to adhere to Houston-Sconiers’s procedural rule, which provides no basis for relief because procedural rules do not apply retroactively.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Houston-Sconiers and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace