Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Michael Reeder appealed a Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and 14 counts of theft in the first degree. He argued: (1) subpoenas duces tecum issued by a special inquiry judge (SIJ) to financial institutions for Reeder's private bank records violated his constitutional rights under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution; and (2) his sentence violated principles of double jeopardy because the trial court imposed multiple punishments for the same offense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Reeder's conviction and sentence. View "Washington v. Reeder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff in this putative class action was a Texas resident. Plaintiff alleged she received deceptive debt collection letters from defendant Seattle Service Bureau Inc. (SSB), a corporation with its principal place of business in Washington, pursuant to the referral of unliquidated subrogation claims to SSB by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. Plaintiff alleges these letters constitute CPA violations by both SSB and State Farm as its principal. Plaintiff asserted she incurred damages caused by the alleged deceptive acts. This case involved two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. First, the Washington Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), chapter 19.86 RCW) allowed a cause of action for a plaintiff residing outside Washington to sue a Washington corporate defendant for allegedly deceptive acts. Second, the Court was asked to determine whether the CPA supported a cause of action for an out-of-state plaintiff to sue an out-of-state defendant for the allegedly deceptive acts of its instate agent. The United States District Court noted an absence of Washington case law providing guidance on these issues. The Washington Supreme Court answered both certified questions in the affirmative. View "Thornell v. Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc." on Justia Law

In 20 13, PUD commissioners Buz Ketcham and Kurt Anagnostou passed a censure resolution against Edward Piper. The resolution alleged nine instances of misfeasance but contained no underlying factual description to support the charges. Petitioners William Ammons, Douglas Irvine, and Charles Wallace then petitioned to recall Piper. At a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the allegations, Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the recall petition. Finding that the recall petition was frivolous and intentionally filed in bad faith, the superior court awarded Piper attorney fees. Petitioners moved for review of the attorney fees award. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "In re Recall of Piper" on Justia Law

M.H.P. was the son of Leslie Bramlett and Paul Parvin. He was less than two years old when dependency proceedings commenced. M.H.P.'s parents experienced repeated episodes of mental illness, substance abuse, and incarceration in the years preceding and following M.H.P.'s birth. The dependency proceedings commenced after Bramlett, accompanied by M.H.P., arrived at an emergency room showing signs of paranoia and threatening the ER staff. M.H.P. was removed from his parents' care; he remained in the custody of the State until a guardianship order was entered more than two years later. The Department of Social and Health Services and Diana Farrow, the court appointed special advocate (CASA) for M.H.P., appealed a superior court order denying their motion to unseal several sets of motions and orders. The underlying documents at issue were filed by M.H.P.'s parents to obtain public funding for expert services in connection with proceedings to terminate their parental rights. The court granted the motions ex parte without holding a hearing or providing notice to the other parties or to the public. After the CASA discovered the disputed orders, the Department moved to unseal the disputed documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the superior court's "indiscriminate ex parte sealing of documents pertaining to motions for public funding for expert services" violated General Rule (GR) 15; the justifications advanced by the superior court did not warrant creating a blanket exemption from GR 15 in parental termination cases; and in its memorandum opinion explaining the disputed orders, the superior court did not apply (or even mention) the "lshikawa" factors that all courts must analyze before granting a motion to seal. View "In re Dependency of M.H.P." on Justia Law

In October 2009, a Washington State Patrol trooper observed a truck, driven by Respondent Kenneth Sandholm, drifting back and forth outside of driving lanes and moving at an erratic speed. After pulling the truck over, the trooper noticed that Sandholm had watery, bloodshot eyes and smelled of alcohol. Sandholm also slurred his speech and displayed poor coordination. He displayed six out of six signs of possible intoxication during his field sobriety test. The trooper arrested Sandholm. Breath alcohol tests, taken approximately two hours later, showed that Sandholm had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .079 and .080. The State charged Sandholm with felony DUI, former RCW 46.61.502(6)(a) (2008), based on Sandholm having four or more prior DUI offenses within 10 years. This case involved an interpretation of former RCW 46.61.502 (2008), and a determination of the number of alternative means of committing an offense established by the statute. Depending on that determination, the issue for the Supreme Court to decide was whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction. Also, this case involved how offender scores for prior convictions were calculated under former RCW 9.94A.525 (2008). The Court of Appeals held that the statute established three alternative means and that the jury instructions were error but harmless in this case. The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and concluded that RCW 9.94A.525(2)(e) created an exclusive scoring provision when the conviction is for felony DUI. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and held that former RCW 46.61.502 (2008) created two alternative means of committing DUI. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's sentencing calculation. View "Washington v. Sandholm" on Justia Law

Zahid Khan was tried, without an interpreter, for multiple counts of child molestation and rape. Khan was not a native English speaker, and his level of English fluency was disputed. It was undisputed that he was not offered an interpreter by the court or by his attorney. He was convicted, and on appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, Khan argued among other things, that his trial was unfair and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not securing an interpreter. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that Khan had not made the requisite showing for the Court to vacate his sentence. In the alternative, Khan asked for an evidentiary hearing to develop the factual basis for his claims. The Court concluded that Khan did make the requisite showing for such a hearing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' order dismissing this personal restraint petition was vacated, and the case remanded for entry of an order transferring Khan’s petition to the Snohomish County Superior Court for a reference hearing. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Khan" on Justia Law

Norma Tison entered into a lease for a mobile home lot in October 2001. The lease was executed on a preprinted form prepared by Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington. It was a one-year lease with several handwritten provisions that Tison specifically negotiated. The lease called for a monthly rent of $345 and contained a negotiated provision (the “rent cap provision”) that stated, "Every other year, rent will be raised no more than $10.00 for remaining tenancy." Petitioner Western Plaza LLC purchased the mobile home park in February 2008. At that time, Tison's monthly rent was $375. In March 2009, Western Plaza sent Tison a notice that her rent would be increased to $405 starting in July 2009. Tison began paying $385 per month, consistent with the rent cap provision; there was nothing in the record that indicated whether Western Plaza contemporaneously rejected any of Tison's $385 payments or indicated to her that it considered those payments partial. In June 2011, Western Plaza informed Tison that her rent would increase to $495 starting in October 2011. Relying on the rent cap provision, Tison attempted to pay the $395 she believed was due. Western Plaza rejected her payments and initiated this unlawful detainer action. Tison moved for summary judgment, arguing that Western Plaza was bound by the rent cap provision. Western Plaza argued that the rent cap provision was not enforceable because it conflicted with the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and violated the statute of frauds. The trial court denied Tison's motion for summary judgment and resolved the unlawful detainer action in Western Plaza's favor. The Court of Appeals reversed. After review, the Supreme Court held hold that the provision was permissible under the MHLTA and that the writing and signatures on the lease satisfied the statute of frauds applicable to rental agreements for mobile home lots. The Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison" on Justia Law

On the eve of Matthew Hampton's trial, Hampton moved to replace his appointed counsel with a new private attorney on the condition that the trial be continued so his new counsel could prepare. The trial court denied the continuance, so Hampton proceeded with his previously appointed counsel. He was ultimately convicted of third degree rape. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court's decision violated Hampton's constitutional right to his choice of counsel because it considered Hampton's reasons for wanting a new attorney. The Court of Appeals relied on a United States Supreme Court opinion that held that when a defendant's right to choice of counsel was erroneously denied, a defendant need not show prejudice in order to obtain relief. The Supreme Court reversed: “[a] trial court has wide latitude to grant or deny a motion to delay trial related to a defendant's request to change counsel. . . . In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Hampton's request to delay trial to allow him to replace his counsel given that (1) he did not make his request until the day his trial was scheduled to start, (2) his trial had already been continued once, (3) the victim/witness opposed the continuance, and (4) he did not explain his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel.” View "Washington v. Hampton" on Justia Law

Appellants sought to reverse a superior court order denying appellants' motion to enjoin the secretary of state from placing Initiative 1366 (I-1366) on the November 2015 general election ballot. Appellants claimed the initiative went beyond the scope of the people’s initiative power under article II, section 1 of the Washington constitution and was therefore not proper for direct legislation. The trial court ruled that: ( 1) appellants had standing to challenge the initiative as taxpayers, county election officials, and legislators; (2) this was a challenge to the scope of the initiative and therefore appropriate for preelection review; (3) the "fundamental, stated and overriding purpose" of I-1366 was to amend the constitution in violation of article II of the state constitution; (4) I-1366 violated article XXIII of the state constitution; and (5) appellants were unable to show a "clear legal or equitable right" to an injunction under “Rabon v. City of Seattle,” ( 957 P.2d 621 (1998)), because the Supreme Court had yet to decide whether preelection restrictions on initiatives infringe on free speech rights under the First Amendment or article I, section 5 of the Washington constitution. After review, the Washington Court determined that appellants did not make a clear showing that the subject matter of the initiative was not within the broad scope of the people's power of direct legislation and, as such, failed to demonstrate a clear legal right for injunctive relief. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court. View "Huff v. Wyman" on Justia Law

In this case, Javier Ruiz-Sanabria timely filed a motion in superior court to withdraw his guilty plea to several sex offenses. The court transferred his motion to Division One of the Court of Appeals, but without indicating the basis for the transfer and without transferring all records filed in relation to Ruiz-Sanabria's motion. Considering the motion as a personal restraint petition based solely on the partial record that was transmitted, and without requesting a response from the State, the acting chief judge of Division One dismissed the petition as frivolous. By way of this opinion, the Supreme Court clarified the criteria a superior court must consider before transferring a postconviction motion to the Court of Appeals, the relationship between the rules governing personal restraint petitions and evidentiary prerequisites that a petitioner must meet, and when the petitioner's allegations may require the court to consult existing court records that the petitioner has not produced: “We have said that the petitioner must demonstrate that he has competent, admissible evidence to establish the facts that entitle him to relief, and that bare assertions and conclusory allegations are insufficient. But if the petitioner makes specific and material factual allegations within the petitioner's knowledge about court proceedings that can be answered by the State, the Court of Appeals should require a response that includes the relevant court documents. In this instance, remand to the Court of Appeals is warranted.” View "In re Pers. Restraint of Ruiz-Sanabria" on Justia Law