HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions For Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

To view the full text of these opinions, please click here. Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or LexisAdvance. 

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new published opinions and Division Three filed 1 new published opinion on Tuesday, December 3, 2013: 

Division Two: 

1. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Cornerstone Homes & Dev., LLC

No. 43619-1

(December 3, 2013)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2743 Lexis.com

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2743 LexisAdvance 


             PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW           

Brief: RCW 61.24.100(10) prohibited the lender from obtaining a deficiency judgment against the guarantors of three commercial promissory notes issued by the guarantors’ construction company because the deeds of trust that the lender non-judicially foreclosed to satisfy the company's underlying debt also secured the guarantors' commercial guaranty under the express terms of the guaranty, promissory notes, and deeds of trust drafted by the lender’s predecessor.


2. State v. Clapper

No. 43746-5

(December 3, 2013)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2745 Lexis.com

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2745 LexisAdvance 

  Areas: CRIMINAL LAW           

  Brief: The custodial misconduct statute, RCW 9A.44.160, is not unconstitutionally vague because an ordinary person would clearly understand that the statute applies to a corrections officer.


3. State v. Burdette

No. 42520-3

(December 3, 2013)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2744 Lexis.com

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2744 LexisAdvance 

  Areas: CRIMINAL LAW           

  Brief: The trial court did not violate either the defendant’s right to a public trial or the public's right to open proceedings by not conducting discussions about the jury instructions and two communications from the jury in open court, because neither of the rights attached to the challenged proceedings. Further, the defendant’s absence during the court's consideration of the second jury communication violated his right to be present at a critical stage of trial, but the error was harmless. 


Division Three: 


State v. Quintanilla

No. 30769-7

(December 3, 2013)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2730 Lexis.com 

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2730 LexisAdvance 

  Areas: CRIMINAL LAW           

  Brief: The Court of Appeals affirms the defendant’s conviction and sentence for use of extortionate means to collect extensions of credit, rejecting his contentions that (1) sufficient evidence does not exist to support his conviction, (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, and (3) the sentencing court erred in failing to total his legal financial obligations.

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe, or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.