a court-ordered urinalysis. Rather, we are confronted with the sentencing judge’s direct question to Washington regarding his drug use. After Mitchell, a number of state appellate decisions have held the sentencing court may consider the defendant’s silence or refusal to answer questions in determining the appropriate sentence. See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 231 Ariz. 353, 295 P.3d 451, 454 (Ct.App.2013) (noting its agreement “with those jurisdictions that have concluded the Fifth Amendment does not preclude a sentencing court from considering a defendant’s refusal to answer questions about the offense in determining whether he or she is a suitable candidate for probation” and collecting cases from other jurisdictions); State v. Blunt, 118 Wash.App. 1, 71 P.3d 657, 662 & n. 13 (2003) (<HOLDING>). One situation federal and state courts have
holding that a showing of prejudice is generally required in the context of an ineffectiveassistance claim holding that sentencing enhancements and sentencing departures are not synonymous and that a waiver for upward departures imposed by the court does not permit the challenging of sentence enhancements recognizing that most courts have generally declined to extend mitchell to prohibit inferences from silence in the context of sentence enhancements that do not involve factual details of the underlying crime and collecting cases holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that generally an unsworn statement by counsel is not evidence in the context of a batson hearing