Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Steven Beadle appealed his convictions for first degree child molestation. At a pretrial child hearsay hearing, the four-year-old alleged victim had a serious emotional breakdown and refused to testify. The court found the child unavailable to testify at trial and admitted her out-of-court statements to family members, mental health providers, child protective services, and law enforcement. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by finding the victim's statements admissible. Upon review, both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "Washington v. Beadle" on Justia Law

Petitioner Gilberto Ibarra-Cisneros and his brother Adrian Ibarra-Raya, were separately prosecuted on drug charges in November 2006. Both moved unsuccessfully to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the warrantless search of Ibarra-Raya's home. Specifically, Ibarra-Cisneros argued to suppress the evidence against him as the fruit of an unlawful use of Ibarra-Raya's cell phone, which was seized during the search. The appellate court determined that the search of the home was unlawful, but that the connection between Ibarra-Raya's cell phone and "the bindle found at Mr. Ibarra-Cisneros's feet [was] too attenuated to affect his cocaine possession conviction." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred in relying on the "attenuation doctrine" as the basis to allow the cocaine evidence against Ibarra-Cisneros: "In light of the way this case has developed, the only fair resolution of Ibarra-Cisneros's appeal is to treat is as the Court of Appeals treated Ibarra-Raya's appeal. The State has not met its burden of purging the taint resulting from the unlawful home search." The Court remanded the case to the trial court "with the acknowledgement that, because the warrantless home search was unlawful, all evidence seized as a result must be suppressed." View "Washington v. Ibarra-Cisneros" on Justia Law

The State appealed the reversal of Respondent Ernest Carter's sentence. The Court of Appeals applied the "actual innocence doctrine" to hear Respondent's untimely personal restraint petition (PRP) and held that Respondent was erroneously sentenced as a persistent offender under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981. In 1998, the superior court entered a judgment and sentence convicting Respondent on two counts of robbery in the first degree and sentenced him as a persistent offender to life in prison. Respondent's prior offenses included a 1983 California conviction for assault with a firearm on a police officer and a 1990 Oregon conviction for attempted murder. Respondent timely filed a direct appeal raising nine issues including a claim that his prior California assault conviction was not comparable to a Washington strike offense under the POAA and should not have been counted toward his sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. Almost seven years after the mandate, Respondent filed this PRP, arguing that his due process rights were violated during his 1998 trial when he appeared in shackles and that his sentence was unlawful. Respondent argued on appeal that: (1) there had been a significant change in the law (RCW 10.73.100(6)), (2) the sentence imposed was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction (RCW 10.73.100(5)), (3) Respondent's judgment and sentence were facially invalid (RCW 10.73.090), (4) equitable tolling under Washington common law warranted review, and (5) the federal actual innocence doctrine warranted review. The Court of Appeals dismissed Carter’s shackling claim as untimely, applied the actual innocence doctrine to the comparability issue, declined to address his alternative claims for relief, vacated Respondent's persistent offender sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the comparability issue. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case because the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the actual innocence doctrine to hear Respondent's untimely PRP prior to considering his other claimed exceptions to the time bar in RCW 10.73.090. View "In re Personal Restraint of Carter" on Justia Law

Defendant John Franklin challenged the Court of Appeals decision affirming his convictions and sentences on assault and drug possession charges. The Supreme Court granted review only on the question of whether Defendant was entitled to resentencing for counts I and III as a result of then-new legislation requiring sentencing courts to reduce the term of community custody when the total terms of confinement and community custody exceeded the statutory maximum. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that while the legislation applied retroactively, the legislature charged the Department of Corrections, not the sentencing court, with adjusting the length of community custody for those serving terms of confinement or community custody by modifying the end date for community custody. Thus, the Court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to resentencing by the trial court and it affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Defendant Alberto Perez-Valdez challenged two evidentiary decisions made by a judge of the Walla Walla County Superior Court during a trial that resulted in his conviction for one count of second degree rape of a child and one count of third degree rape of a child. He also challenged the trial court’s denial of his motions for a mistrial based on a statement made by a state witness relating to the credibility of the victims. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making these decisions. Therefore, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "Washington v. Perez-Valdez" on Justia Law

Defendant Jay McKague appealed his conviction for second degree assault, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. Defendant shoplifted a can of smoked oysters from a convenience store. The owner followed Defendant out of the store and confronted him in the parking lot. Defendant punched the owner in the head several times and pushed him to the ground, causing the owner's head to strike the pavement. He was diagnosed with a concussion without loss of consciousness, a scalp contusion and lacerations, and head and neck pain. Defendant was charged with first degree robbery, with third degree theft as an inferior offense, and second degree assault predicated on the infliction of substantial bodily injury. At Defendant's request, the court also instructed the jury on third degree assault as an inferior offense of second degree assault. The jury convicted Defendant of third degree theft and second degree assault. The dissent on the appellate panel took issue with the of the sufficiency of the evidence of “substantial bodily harm.” Specifically, the dissent disagreed with the lead opinion’s citation to a dictionary definition of the term “substantial” as including “something having substance or actual existence.” Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ holding that substantial evidence supported the conviction, but in doing so the Court disapproved of the definition of “substantial bodily harm” applied by the Court of Appeals majority: "[w]e agree … that the majority applied an erroneous definition of 'substantial,' but we nonetheless affirm McKague’s conviction because the evidence was sufficient to show that [the owner's] injuries were 'substantial' under a proper definition." View "Washington v. McKague" on Justia Law

Defendant Chucco Robinson erroneously believed that his earlier juvenile convictions had washed out and no longer counted toward his offender score. Based upon this understanding and after extensive negotiations largely focused on an offender score that would lead to a mutually acceptable sentence, he pled guilty. Before sentencing, he learned that his juvenile convictions would count toward his offender score, significantly increasing the statutory sentencing range he faced. Defendant immediately moved to withdraw his plea. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that Defendant's misunderstanding of the consequences of Washington sentencing law was reasonable, though erroneous, and that the plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The State contended on appeal that the trial judge abused her discretion when she allowed Defendant to withdraw his plea. The Supreme Court found the ruling was within the sound discretion of the trial court. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Demar Rhome argued on direct appeal to the Supreme Court that the state and federal constitutions require independent findings of fact that a defendant is competent to waive counsel and represent himself at trial. In November of 2003, 17-year-old Lashonda Flynn was stabbed to death. Seventeen-year-old Kialani Brown confessed to the killing but pointed to Defendant as the mastermind behind the slaying. Defendant was charged in King County Superior Court with first degree murder with a deadly weapon. Defendant's mental competency became an issue at trial. After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the superior court found that the defense had not met the burden of proving Defendant was incompetent to stand trial. Shortly after the competency hearing, Defendant received new counsel. Defendant represented himself throughout his 2006 proceedings with counsel on stand-by. In reviewing his performance during pretrial and trial proceedings, a defense expert opined that Defendant's mental illness impacted his ability to defend himself in court. Defendant was convicted by a jury as charged and sentenced to 371 months in prison. Represented by appointed federal public defenders, Defendant filed this original personal restraint petition to challenge the trial court’s decision to allow him to waive counsel and proceed pro se. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendant did not demonstrate that federal or state law requires an independent determination of mental competency to proceed pro se when a mentally ill defendant seeks to waive counsel: "[e]ven if such a rule could be crafted from [federal case law] in conjunction with this court’s precedent, Rhome cannot benefit from that rule on a personal restraint petition." The Court also concluded that Defendant failed to show the trial court abused its discretion when it found his waiver of counsel to be knowing and intelligent. The Court dismissed Defendant's petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Rhome" on Justia Law

The primary issue presented in this case was whether former RCW 9.92.151 (2004) or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires a county jail to provide opportunities for an inmate who is yet to be sentenced to earn credit toward early release, also known as "good-time" credit. Petitioner, Teddy Talley argued that the Skamania County Jail and the Department of Corrections (Department) violated the former RCW 9.92.151(1) and the Constitution by not providing opportunities for him to earn good-time credit before his criminal conviction. Skamania County argued that the statutory issue was not properly before the Supreme Court and that its program for earning good-time credit is constitutional. The Department argued that it may rely on a county’s jail-time certification when determining the appropriate amount of good-time credit to apply toward early release. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the matter was properly before it, and that the former RCW 9.92.151 required a county jail to provide opportunities for a presentence inmate to earn good-time credit. The Court did not reach Defendant's constitutional argument. Because the Skamania County Jail policy conflicted with the former RCW 9.92.151, the Court calculated that Defendant should have received an earned early-release credit at the statutory maximum rate of 15 percent. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Talley" on Justia Law

Defendants John Gordon and Charles Bukovsky were each charged with second-degree murder in the beating death of Brian Lewis. The State also sought two aggravating sentencing factors: deliberate cruelty and particular vulnerability of the victim. The jury was instructed to determine whether the aggravators were present, but the instructions did not define "deliberate cruelty" or "particular vulnerability." Defendants did not object to the instructions on that basis. The jury found the defendants guilty and also found the aggravators applied. The trial court imposed exceptional sentences. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the failure to provide detailed instructions defining the meaning of "deliberate cruelty" or "particular vulnerability" was a manifest error of constitutional magnitude that could be addressed for the first time on appeal. The Court held that it is not and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Gordon" on Justia Law