Bobbe Jean Bridge

In State v. Ross, three defendants challenged their felony sentences on appeal, contending that the State had not proven their prior out-of-state or federal convictions were comparable to Washington crimes and therefore should not count toward their offender scores under the Sentencing Reform Act. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, ruling that the defendants waived any such challenge because their counsel had affirmatively acknowledged at sentencing that the convictions were properly included in their criminal history. The court distinguished its earlier decision in In re Goodwin, where no acknowledgment occurred, and found no factual or legal error supporting claims of miscalculated scores. It also rejected arguments for retroactive application of statutory changes in one defendant's case under the savings clause of RCW 10.01.040.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved three Washington state inmates serving sentences for crimes including murder and child molestation who filed personal restraint petitions after being temporarily transferred in 1999 to a private prison facility in Colorado due to overcrowding in state facilities. Petitioners argued that the Department of Corrections lacked statutory authority to make the transfers and that due process required a pretransfer hearing, claiming the state had surrendered jurisdiction and seeking their release. The Washington Supreme Court denied the petitions, holding that the DOC possessed statutory authority to contract for out-of-state placements as an interim measure and that the transfers did not violate due process. The court reasoned that relevant statutes and administrative rules permitted such temporary housing arrangements and that U.S. Supreme Court precedent established no additional liberty interest was implicated by interstate prison transfers.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Schwab, the defendant was convicted of first degree manslaughter and second degree felony murder for a single homicide; the Court of Appeals initially vacated the manslaughter conviction on double jeopardy grounds while affirming the murder conviction. After the Washington Supreme Court's Andress decision invalidated felony murder convictions predicated on assault, Schwab's murder conviction was also vacated via personal restraint petition. On remand, the superior court reinstated the manslaughter conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that RAP 2.5(c)(2) authorized review of the previously vacated manslaughter conviction and that the appellate court properly exercised discretion to reinstate it once double jeopardy concerns were eliminated by vacating the murder conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Andre Becklin, who was charged with stalking his ex-girlfriend by directing friends to follow her, report on her activities, and harass her in violation of a protection order. At trial, the jury asked whether stalking could occur through third parties, and the trial court answered yes after consulting counsel, leading to Becklin's conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the response improper and an incorrect statement of law due to lack of an accomplice liability instruction. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court's answer accurately reflected that directing others to harass constitutes stalking and that further instruction was within the court's discretion since both parties had argued the issue in closing. The decision rested on the statutory definition of a course of conduct in the stalking statute and the principle that accountability for another's actions can arise directly under the law defining the crime.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved small waste collection companies, including Kendall Trucking, challenging the City of Seattle's contracts and ordinances that granted Rabanco and Waste Management exclusive rights to collect construction, demolition, and land clearing waste (CDL) within the city. The Washington Supreme Court held that the City's restrictions did not impermissibly infringe on the petitioners' rights and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court reasoned that state law allows a city's direct contracts for solid waste collection to end Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission jurisdiction, that the City's definition of CDL as "City's Waste" was within its municipal authority, and that the resulting monopoly had a rational basis tied to environmental and regulatory goals without violating article I, section 12 privileges and immunities protections.

business & regulatoryenvironment

In State v. Codiga, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree child molestation in exchange for dismissal of two other counts, with the parties agreeing on an offender score of seven based on two prior felonies. After the presentence investigation revealed additional misdemeanor convictions that prevented one felony from washing out, the offender score rose to eight and increased the standard sentencing range; Codiga then sought to withdraw his plea on grounds of mutual mistake and inadequate judicial confirmation of his understanding. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the plea agreement's explicit risk-allocation clause bound Codiga to the consequences of newly discovered criminal history and that the record showed he understood the charges, the factual basis, and the plea consequences. The decision rested on the distinction between factual discovery of additional history (which the defendant had assumed) and legal error, together with evidence that Codiga knew of the issue before sentencing yet proceeded.

criminal lawprocedure