context: P10 Historically, we have attempted to maintain congruence in our retroactivity analysis with the standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that St. Pierre sets out the current prospective application analysis in Washington, which is derived from the two United States Supreme Court retroactivity analysis cases cited in St. Pierre
citation_a.sentence: Cf. State v. Hanson, 151 Wn.2d 783, 789, 91 P.3d 888 (2004) (stating that St. Pierre sets out the current prospective application analysis in Washington, which is derived from the two United States Supreme Court retroactivity analysis cases cited in St. Pierre).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 118 Wn.2d 321, 324-26
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "we have attempted from the outset to stay in step with the federal retroactivity analysis," and discussing a recent change in the federal retroactivity analysis
citation_b.sentence: See In re Pers. Restraint of Sauve, 103 Wn.2d 322, 328, 692 P.2d 818 (1985) (holding that the balancing test established by the United States Supreme Court was still appropriate to determine the retroactivity or nonretroactivity of a new decision); In re Pers. Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 324-26, 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (stating that “we have attempted from the outset to stay in step with the federal retroactivity analysis,” and discussing a recent change in the federal retroactivity analysis); In re Pers. Restraint of Benn, 134 Wn.2d 868, 940, 952 P.2d 116 (1998) (citing the federal analysis discussed by this court in St. Pierre as the current retroactivity analysis in Washington State).