Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Litigation

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From May 7, 2015

Thursday, May 7, 2015

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

The Supreme Court of Washington filed 6 new opinions and Division Three of the Court of Appeals did not file any new published opinions on Thursday, May 7, 2015::

Supreme Court:

1. In re Personal Restraint of Erhart
No. 89107-9      
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 556 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 556 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The dismissal of the petitioner's personal restraint petition as untimely was proper because the violation of the petitioner’s right to a public trial did not implicate the trial court's jurisdiction or the facial validity of the judgment and sentence for purposes of RCW 10.73.090(1), and the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of a significant change in the law that would exempt his public trial claim from the one-year time limit on obtaining collateral relief.

2. In re Personal Restraint of Tsai / In re Personal Restraint of Jagana
No. 88770-5      
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 555 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 555 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: As applied to Washington state, the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), that defense counsel has a constitutional duty to advise a noncitizen defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty is not a “new” constitutional rule of criminal procedure and may be applied retroactively to cases on both direct and collateral review because it did not effect a significant change in the law in light of the RCW 10.40.200 right to such advice. But although the Padilla rule is not a “new” constitutional rule of criminal procedure, it nonetheless constitutes a “significant change” in the law for purposes of the RCW 10.73.100(6) statutory exception to the one-year time bar of RCW 10.73.090 on obtaining collateral review.

3. State v. Fuentes / State v. Sandoz
No. 90039-6      
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 557 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 557 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: These consolidated cases required the court to resolve whether the totality of the circumstances in each case provided law enforcement with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a Terry stop. Both cases involved the stop of a defendant after the defendant entered a high-crime apartment complex and visited an apartment occupied by a suspected drug dealer. However, other circumstances distinguished the cases, leading to different results. Because the circumstances included a particularized suspicion of criminal activity in State v. Fuentes, the Court of Appeals was affirmed in that case, but the Court of Appeals was reversed in the State v. Sandoz case because, in contrast to Fuentes, there were insufficient facts to give rise to individualized suspicion. 

4. State v. Glasmann
No. 88913-9       
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 554 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 554 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The court found no basis to overrule case law precedent establishing that if (1) the State charges a person with greater and lesser offenses and the jury is unable to agree regarding the greater offense but finds the defendant guilty of the lesser offense and (2) the defendant's conviction for the lesser offense is reversed on appeal, then the State may retry the defendant for the greater offense without placing the defendant in double jeopardy.

5. State v. Peeler
No. 90068-0      
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 553 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 553 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The intrastate detainers act, chapter 9.98 RCW, requires the State to bring a state prisoner to trial for any untried charge within 120 days of the prisoner's request for a final disposition. The defendant was serving a prison sentence on a Snohomish County charge at the Washington Corrections Center (WCC) when he requested a final disposition of an untried charge in Skagit County. By the time the Skagit County prosecutor received the defendant’s final disposition request, the Department of Corrections had transported him to the King County jail to await trial on unrelated charges. The defendant was not returned to WCC until well after the Skagit County prosecutor received his request. The State failed to bring the defendant to trial in Skagit County within 120 days of receiving his final disposition request. Thus, even though the defendant was physically located in King County when the State received his final disposition request, his request was valid and the State failed to meet the 120-day deadline to bring him to trial in Skagit County.

6. State v. Reis
No. 90281-0       
(May 7, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 558 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 558 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The plain language of the Washington State Medical Use of Cannabis Act, chapter 69.51A RCW, supported by the context in which the language appears, the overall statutory scheme, and the legislative intent as captured by the governor's veto message, does not support the conclusion that the medical use of marijuana is not a crime. The statute provides only an affirmative defense.

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.