Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the superior court did not clearly state that it was “arresting or vacating” Respondent Anthony Waller’s judgment, or even granting his motion, in its first order on his CrR 7.8 motion. Instead, it skipped straight ahead to ordering a resentencing hearing. This case presented a question about the application of RAP 2.2(b)(3) in this unusual context: Does a series of superior court orders retaining jurisdiction of a CrR 7.8 motion, scheduling a resentencing hearing, ordering the prisoner transported for that resentencing hearing, and clarifying that the first order did indeed grant the CrR 7.8 motion, amount to granting the motion and “vacating” the old sentence within the meaning of RAP 2.2(b)(3)? The Washington Supreme Court held that it did, and reversed the Court of Appeals. "[W]hen a superior court receives a CrR 7.8 motion, it should follow the CrR 7.8(c) procedures. Pursuant to those procedures, the court should ordinarily hold a show cause hearing before granting relief." View "Washington v. Waller" on Justia Law

Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute, RCW 69.50.4013, made possession of a controlled substance a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, plus a hefty fine; leads to deprivation of numerous other rights and opportunities; and did this without proof that the defendant even knew they possessed the substance. In 2016, police executed a search warrant in Spokane, Washington, seeking evidence of stolen vehicles. They arrested three people on the property, including petitioner Shannon Blake. At the jail, a corrections officer discovered a small baggy containing methamphetamine in the coin pocket of Blake’s jeans. The State charged Blake with possession of a controlled substance. At a bench trial, Blake relied on the affirmative defense of "unwitting possession:" a friend bought the jeans secondhand and gave them to Blake two days before Blake's arrest; Blake never used methamphetamine and did not know drugs were in the pocket; and Blake's boyfriend testified Blake was not a drug user. The trial court found Blake possessed drugs without finding her possession was intentional or knowing. The court concluded Blake did not meet her burden proving her possession was unwitting. This case presented an issue of first impression for the Washington Supreme Court: whether the strict liability drug possession statute with these substantial penalties for such innocent, passive conduct exceeded the legislature’s police power. The Court concluded the answer was yes, this exceeded the State's police power. Blake's conviction was vacated. View "Washington v. Blake" on Justia Law

In 1978, 17-year-old Carl Brooks pleaded guilty to eight counts of first degree robbery, first degree rape, first degree kidnapping, first degree assault, second degree murder, and first degree burglary, all while armed with a deadly weapon. Over the span of three days, Brooks carjacked, robbed, and raped a woman while her son was present; attempted to rob a couple where gunfire between Brooks and the male victim led to the shooting death of the victim’s wife; carjacked and robbed a third woman; and threatened a fourth woman in her home, demanded financial information, and assaulted her. Brooks had prior convictions in both juvenile and adult court. At the time, sentencing in Washington was “indeterminate:” trial courts sentenced offenders to the maximum amount of time that could be served. But the amount of time the offender would actually serve was largely controlled by the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles (parole board) who would set the minimum term, taking into account recommendations by the trial court and prosecutor. The judge ordered five of the life sentences to run concurrently, and the remaining three to run consecutively, effectively sentencing Brooks to four consecutive “blocks” (or groupings) of life sentences. Both the prosecutor and the court recommended that the parole board give Brooks minimum terms of life. Departing from the recommendations slightly, the parole board set minimum terms of 20, 25, 25, and 20 years for the four blocks, for a minimum total of 90 years. Not long after Brooks was sentenced, the Washington legislature replaced the indeterminate sentencing system with a determinate system. For those sentenced under the former indeterminate sentencing system who were still incarcerated, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) (the successor to the parole board) was directed to “attempt to make [parole] decisions reasonably consistent” with the Sentencing Reform Act. While Brooks has been serving his time, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Washington Supreme Court determined that by its plain language, RCW 9.94A.730 applies to Brooks’ sentence. The ISRB was ordered to provide Brooks with a hearing under RCW 9.94A.730 that presumed release. Accordingly, the Court granted the Personal Restraint Petitioned, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded to the ISRB for further proceedings. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Brooks" on Justia Law

Long before his judgment and sentence was final, Vincent Fowler hired and paid an attorney, John Crowley, to prepare and file his personal restraint petition (PRP). But after repeatedly and falsely assuring his client he was working on the PRP, Crowley stopped responding to calls. As the one-year time bar approached and it became apparent Crowley had abandoned him, Fowler hired a new attorney. Fowler learned Crowley had resigned his law license rather than face professional discipline for failing to diligently represent other clients, among other things. Before the time bar passed, Fowler’s present counsel filed a “placeholder” PRP explaining he needed additional time to get Fowler’s legal file and investigate grounds for relief. After the time bar had passed, counsel filed a “supplemental” PRP arguing Fowler’s trial attorney was ineffective. The Court of Appeals dismissed the PRP as untimely. The Washington Supreme Court determined equitable tolling was warranted in this case. "The misconduct of Fowler’s attorney was egregious and Fowler exercised diligence." The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration on the merits. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Fowler" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review centered on the eligibility criteria of the special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA), which required offenders to have an established relationship with, or connection to, the victim such that the sole connection with the victim was not the commission of the crime. Petitioner Cory Pratt and his victim shared a family member in common, but did not have a direct relationship. In 2016, Pratt and his daughter attended his cousin’s birthday party. Several young girls spent the night after the party, including M.B., the 10-year-old daughter of Pratt’s aunt’s stepsister. Pratt slept in a backyard tent with the girls. The next day, M.B. told her grandmother and parents that Pratt touched her in the tent. Pratt was charged with one count of first-degree child molestation, and convicted after a two-day bench trial. Pratt requested the SSOSA sentence at issue here. The State contended he was not eligible because he did not have an “established relationship” with M.B. as required by statute: the State noted Pratt had met the child hours of the party; Pratt contended his connection was established through “familial ties.” The trial court sentenced Pratt according to SSOSA, reducing his sentence from 57 months of confinement to 12 months. The State appealed. Concluding Pratt was not “connected” to his victim as contemplated by the applicable statute, the Washington Supreme Court determined he was not eligible for a SSOSA sentence. The Court of Appeals was affirmed and the matter remanded for resentencing. View "Washington v. Pratt" on Justia Law

In 2007, petitioner Alejandro Garcia Mendoza pled guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He moved to withdraw the plea on grounds his counsel did not advise him as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. 356 (2010). Petitioner also argued he did not need to show prejudice under RCW 10.40.200. The Court of Appeals concluded petitioner was raising two claims: a constitutional claim that was exempt from the time bar, and a statutory claim that was not. It dismissed his challenge as mixed without reaching the merits. The Washington Supreme Court concluded petitioner made one claim for relief: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that under RCW 10.40.200 he did not need to show prejudice to bring this claim, but since he made a prima face showing of ineffective assistance in a challenge that is time exempt, the dismissal of his petition was vacated and this matter was remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Garcia-Mendoza" on Justia Law

A patient being treated for a sexual assault made statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner in the course of an exam with both medical and forensic purposes. The Washington Supreme Court held that under these circumstances, the primary purpose of nearly all of the statements was to guide the provision of medical care, not to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. Thus, the statements were not testimonial, so their admission did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting those statements under the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Finally, the Court found the trial court did err in admitting one statement describing the assailant, but the error was harmless. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Washington v. Burke" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review centered on whether the state legislature could impose a duty to register as a sex offender in Washington where an individual would be required to register in the state of conviction. In 1984, respondent Benjamin Batson pleaded guilty in an Arizona court to two counts of sexual conduct with a minor. As a result of his conviction, Arizona law required Batson to register as a sex offender for life. At some point prior to April 6, 2009, Batson moved to Washington. At that time, the State required individuals to register as sex offenders only if their out-ofstate offense would have been classified as a sex offense in Washington. Since Batson’s Arizona conviction arose from sexual contact with a 16-year-old, his offense would not have been a crime in Washington. But in June 2010, the state legislature amended the sex registry statute to require registration for “[a]ny federal or out-of-state conviction for: [a]n offense for which the person would be required to register as a sex offender while residing in the state of conviction.” The Court of Appeals held that RCW 9A.44.128(10)(h) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed: "the legislature permissibly identified circumstances under which Washington sex offender registration requirements become operative as to individuals with out-of-state convictions." View "Washington v. Batson" on Justia Law

Simon Martinez sexually abused his daughter, Y.M., for nearly a decade, starting when she was about 5 years old. Martinez raped and sexually abused Y.M. regularly until she moved out of the family home in 2014, when she was about 14. Around that time, she told several people about the sexual abuse, including authorities. The State charged Martinez with one count of first degree rape of a child, which required it to prove Martinez raped Y.M. when she was no more than 12 years old. The State limited the charging period to three years: July 2009 to July 2012, even though there was considerable evidence the abuse continued until Y.M. was 14. The State elected not to add a charge of second degree rape. During trial, over Martinez’s objection, Y.M.’s two friends, her mother, and a friend’s mother were all permitted to testify that in 2014, Y.M. told them she had been sexually abused; this was long after the charging period, but contemporaneous with the ongoing abuse. Martinez moved to exclude Y.M.’s complaints to these witnesses as untimely since they happened so long after the charging period. The trial judge denied the motion, concluding that complaints were no longer required to be timely to be admissible. Based on those complaints, Y.M.’s testimony, and other evidence, the jury found Martinez guilty. Martinez received an indeterminate sentence of 123 months to life. Martinez largely argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the four witnesses to testify. Finding no such abuse of discretion, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Washington v. Martinez" on Justia Law

In 2010, Amanda Knight and accomplices ransacked James and Charlene Sanders’ home, zip-tied them, placed them face down on the floor, stole their wedding rings off their fingers at gunpoint, pistol-whipped Charlene and her son, and shot and killed James Sanders. A jury convicted Knight of multiple crimes, including felony murder in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of assault in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree. By way of personal restraint petition, Knight challenged these convictions on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that her robbery and felony murder conviction against James, as well as her robbery and assault conviction against Charlene, should have merged. The Court of Appeals held that the two convictions against James merged, but declined to review Knight’s convictions against Charlene because the Court of Appeals had previously reviewed and dismissed that double jeopardy claim on direct appeal. The Washington Supreme Court held that Knight’s convictions against James Sanders did not merge, and that review of her convictions against Charlene Sanders was barred. "Knight’s robbery and felony murder convictions against James served independent effects, falling under an exception to the double jeopardy merger doctrine. However, the Court of Appeals correctly held that Knight’s claim against her convictions in regards to Charlene is barred as it was already raised and dismissed on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Appeals’ ruling, affirm Knight’s original conviction and sentence, and dismiss her personal restraint petition." View "In re Pers. Restraint of Knight" on Justia Law