the sentencing of capital defendants. The SRA and RCW 10.95 serve two separate functions and are consistent. The SRA is a determinate sentencing system for felony offenders. . . . The statute, however, does not purport to govern or guide penalty phase juries in their sentencing decisions. This function is served by RCW 10.95, which guides and channels the jury’s discretion in reaching an individualized sentencing decision for each defendant convicted of a capital offense. Brett, 126 Wn.2d at 184 (citation omitted). Brett also made the same argument that Stenson makes, that singling out aggravated murder defendants as the sole group to be excluded from RCW 9.94A.360 violates equal protection. We have rejected that argument. Brett, 126 Wn.2d at 185. See also Lord, 117 Wn.2d at 896-97 (<HOLDING>). The trial court properly admitted certified
holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection