This week at the Supreme Court, May 31, 2010
There are no arguments scheduled this week. The court will consider new petitions for review on June 1 and may issue opinions on June 3.
Opinion: Community custody violation overturned
In re Pers. Restraint of Blackburn, No. 82329-4. Douglas Blackburn pleaded guilty to two drug crimes. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment followed by a period of community custody. To remain under community custody and not return to prison, Blackburn was required to "obey all laws." During his community custody, the Department of Corrections sent Blackburn a notice alleging that he had failed this requirement by "threatening to kill Shelly Blackburn." The only reference to a particular statute was as the sixth item on a list of "documents and witnesses that DOC intended to present at a violation hearing." Blackburn was found in violation, and an administrative appeals panel affirmed. He filed a personal restraint petition to the State Supreme Court.
Today the Court unanimously grants Blackburn's petition and overturns the DOC. The notice to Blackburn was deficient because it failed to specify which law he had violated.
We hold that for DOC to lawfully reclassify an offender for imprisonment for a violation of an "obey all laws" condition of community custody, the notice must allege the facts and legal elements that DOC would have to prove to show an offender did not obey all laws. ... Although a notice may state the elements, a citation to the statute suffices if the statute includes all of the elements. If the statute does not include all of the elements, the notice must indicate the nonstatutory elements that would render the offender's conduct unlawful.
Justice Fairhurst authored the Court's opinion. (briefs, argument)
Today's arguments: May 27, 2010
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today (briefs and docket).
In the morning session:
Internet Community & Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State, No. 82845-8. In 2007, Internet Community & Entertainment Corp. was informed by agents of the Washington State Gambling Commission that its website Betcha.com was engaged in illegal gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at the trial level. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that because Betcha.com customers agreed in advance that participants were not required to pay their losses, Betcha.com was not engaged in “gambling” as defined in the Gambling Act.
Rousso v. State, No. 83040-1. Lee Rousso, an amateur poker player, is challenging the state’s ban on internet gambling, arguing it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Poker Players Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of Rousso's case.
In the afternoon session:
In re Detention of Gale West, No. 82568-8. In a civil commitment trial for an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP), does the respondent have a right to discover an expert witness’s prior evaluations of other suspected SVPs? Is it permissible for a witness to testify about the conditions and treatment phases at the Special Commitment Center?
In re Detention of Charles W. Post, No. 83023-1. In a civil commitment trial for an alleged sexually violent predator, is evidence about the treatment available at the Special Commitment Center admissible? Is evidence that a respondent, if released, could later be subject to another commitment proceeding upon commission of a “recent overt act” admissible?
This week at the Supreme Court, May 24, 2010
This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments in several cases on Thursday and will likely issue opinions on that day as well.
Puget Sound Federalist Society May 26 Event
This is a bit off-topic, but worth mentioning to interested readers.
Justice Elena Kagan? What the President’s Choice Tells Us About the Modern Court and Confirmation Process
Lecture by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Wednesday evening, May 26, 2010
Washington Athletic Club • 1325 Sixth Avenue, Seattle
Doors open at 6:30, program begins at 7:00
Drinks and hors d’oeuvres will be served
Parking in the Washington Athletic Club’s garage (1409 6th Avenue) will be validated
$25.00 per person, payable at the door by cash or check made out to Federalist Society
RSVP to Michael Bindas by Monday, May 24, 2010 by email at mbindas@ij.org or phone at (206) 341-9300
Presented by
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY PUGET SOUND LAWYERS CHAPTER
in partnership with
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
This week at the Supreme Court, May 17, 2010
The Supreme Court is on the road this week visiting Big Bend Community College. The justices will visit today with students at an open forum and will hear arguments at the college on Tuesday, with Q & A sessions after oral arguments. The court will likely issue opinions on Thursday.
And a technical note: we had a problem with the podcast RSS feed, preventing users from getting the latest episode from iTunes. The problem is fixed now. If you're not subscribed to the Supreme Court of Washington Podcast on iTunes you should be.
No Internet for you!
This month we discuss library Internet filters, witness tampering, rape shield laws, and decisions from the Washington Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast (RSS) - No Internet for you!
Today's Two Opinions: Timely appeals and indispensable parties
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5. Roger Skinner was fired from his job as a Medina Police lieutenant for insubordinate and offensive statements. The Medina Civil Service Commission upheld Skinner's firing and rejected his motion for reconsideration. He appealed, but the superior court granted summary judgment against him. The court found that he had filed too late because 
his motion for reconsideration did not toll the 30-day period for filing his appeal. The court also questioned whether Skinner properly served the Commission by giving his notice of appeal to the city clerk. The Court of Appeals overturned the lower court.
Today, the Supreme Court holds that the motion for reconsideration did toll the 30-day period for appealing to the superior court. Thus Skinner's appeal was timely filed. The Court further holds that Skinner's service on the city clerk, while not perfect, "was reasonably calculated to give notice to the Commission." The Court of Appeals is affirmed. The decision was unanimous, and Justice Owens wrote the opinion. (briefs and argument)
Burt, et al. v. Dept. of Corrections, et al., No. 80998-4. The Court splintered 4-1-4 today on a question of who is an indispensable party to an injunction filed against the release of public records. Both the ACLU and the Washington Coalition for Open Government filed amicus briefs with the Court.
Prisoner Allan Parmelee had filed a public records request for information about certain prison employees. The employees moved for an injunction against releasing the records, which was granted. Parmelee was not joined to the action and his subsequent motions to intervene and for reconsideration were denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
The Supreme Court reverses the lower courts. The lead opinion, written by Justice Charles Johnson and joined by Justices Chambers, Owens, and James Johnson, agrees with Parmelee that "[i]n essence ... the trial court proceedings were not adversarial in that no party represented his position as the records requester." Parmelee should have been joined as an indispensable party under CR 19. The case is remanded with instructions to join Parmelee and without an award of attorney fees.
Justice Sanders concurs separately, noting that the Parelee's status as a prisoner does not diminish his rights under the Public Records Act. "Although some might not view Mr. Parmelee as the poster child for rigorous enforcement of the Public Records Act," Justice Sanders writes, "we should not cut corners to allow bad facts to make bad law as well." Justice Alexander dissents, joined by the Chief and Justice Stephens and Justice Pro Tem. Elaine Houghton (Justice Fairhurst did not participate). (briefs and argument)
Today's arguments, May 13, 2010
The court hears four cases today. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session
In re PRP of Shawn Dominique Francis, No. 82619-6. Whether the defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions by pleading guilty to the crimes.
State v. Irby, No. 82665-0. Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be present when it dismissed some potential jurors outside the defendant’s presence after conferring with defense counsel and the State by email.
Afternoon session
In re W. Russell Van Camp, No. 200,799-6. Whether an attorney can avoid suspension while the bar association’s recommendation for disbarment is heard on appeal.
Guillen, City of Sunnyside v. Contreras, No. 82531-9. A man was killed in a drug deal and the police seized his car and money. The family of the man asked the judge to return the seized property, which the court did at one-quarter of its value. The question is whether the claimant in an action to recover property seized in a controlled substances investigation “substantially prevailed,” and thus was entitled to an award of attorney fees, even though she recovered in value less than one-quarter of the assets she sought.
Tomorrow's opinions, May 13, 2010
The Supreme Court will issue opinions in at least two cases tomorrow.
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5 (briefs and argument). Whether the time limit for appealing a Commission’s decision ran from the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration. Roger Skinner appealed his dismissal from the City of Medina police force to the Medina Civil Service Commission. The Commission upheld his dismissal, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Skinner filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed, saying Skinner had failed file his appeal of the initial order within 30 days as required by law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed.
Burt, et al. v. Dept. of Corrections, et al., No. 80998-4 (briefs and argument). Whether a person requesting documents under the Public Records Act must participate in a proceeding that could result in an injunction that prevents an agency from releasing the requested documents.
Today's arguments - May 11, 2010
On the second argument day of the new session, the Court's docket includes cases on racism, teacher-student sex and the Public Records Act. The Justices will hear four cases, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 a.m.)
State v. Sanchez, No. 82731-1. This case concerns the constitutionality of a specific condition of community custody, and what showing of harm from the condition is required to make the case ripe for a constitutional challenge.
Isidoro Valencia and Eduardo Sanchez were convicted of drug crimes, and their sentences included "community custody." One condition of the community custody was a ban on possessing “any paraphernalia that can be used for the ingestion or processing of controlled substances or that can be used to facilitate the sale or transfer of controlled substances.”
Valencia and Sanchez appealed this condition as being unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals (Division Two) held that the appeal was not yet ripe because the defendants had not yet been harmed by the condition, and that they must wait to appeal until they are charged with violating the condition. Petitioners argue they are harmed by the hardship of complying with a vague condition.
State v. Monday, No. 82736-2. The Court will hear arguments regarding whether allegedly racist and disparaging comments made by the prosecutor prejudiced the jury, and whether a firearm enhancement can be imposed if "firearm" is not defined for the jury.
Kevin Monday was convicted of murder. During the trial, the prosecutor told the jury, “The code is black folk don't testify against black folk. You don't snitch to the police.” Monday claims this was racist. He also made other claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including the prosecutor improperly using the prestige of his office and making fun of witnesses' accents.
In addition, Monday claims that the imposition of a firearm enhancement (meaning the sentence was increased because a firearm was used in the crime) was improper because the court did not define “firearm” for the jury.
The Division One Court of Appeals held that if there were errors, they were not prejudicial.
Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)
Ameriquest Mortgage Co v. Washington Attorney General, No. 82690-1. This case presents the question of whether the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the state Public Records Act.
During an investigation by the Attorney General's Office, Ameriquest Mortgage Company turned a number of documents over to the AGO, including many consumer loan files. A public records request was filed for the documents, and Ameriquest sued the AGO to keep the files secret.
Division Two Court of Appeals held that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which requires banks to keep customer information private, preempts the PRA, preventing disclosure of the loan files. The AGO argues that the statutes are not in conflict, and thus there is no preemption. The AGO also challenges the Court of Appeals' holding that any party simply affected by the disclosure of public records has standing to challenge an agency's decision to waive public records exemptions.
The Washington Coalition for Open Government and the ACLU filed amicus briefs in this case.
State v. Hirschfelder, No. 82744-3. This case is about whether an 18-year-old student is a minor for purposes of the crime of "sexual misconduct with a minor."
Matthew Hirschfelder, a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School, was charged with having had sex with an eighteen-year-old member of the choir. The charge was based on the crime of He was convicted of "sexual misconduct with a minor," which (among other things) prohibits teachers from having sex with students. Hirschfelder argued, and the Division Two Court of Appeals agreed, that the statute only applies to students who are under 18. The state says it applies to all students.
UPDATE: As noted by Robert Hill in the comment threat, Hirschfelder has not been convicted of any crime, nor have the allegations of sexual conduct been proven.
This week at the Supreme Court, May 10, 2010
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday and Thursday, including a case addressing whether federal law preempts the state Public Records Act, and whether a statute criminalized sex between a school employee and an 18-year-old student and if so whether the statute is unconstitutional.
The Court will likely issue opinions on Thursday.
Three Unanimous Opinions: Offender scores, failure to register, and exceptional consecutive sentences
State v. Lucero, No. 83777-5. David Lucero was convicted of second degree assault. At sentencing, he conceded that his offender score was six, which would include one of his two convictions from California. The Court included both convictions, sentencing Lucero based on an offender score of seven, and Lucero appealed.
The Supreme Court had already remanded this case for reconsideration based on their decision in State v. Mendoza (2009). The Court of Appeals then reissued their original decision upholding Lucero's sentence, adding a footnote claiming to distinguish Mendoza. Today the Supreme Court, in a short per curiam opinion, reverses the Court of Appeals and remands to the trial court.
State v. Peterson, No. 82089-9. Michael Peterson challenges his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender. On November 2, 2005, a police officer discovered that Peterson had moved out of the apartment where he had registered several months earlier. A month later, Peterson registered himself as homeless and was charged with failure to register. He challenged his conviction on two grounds, both related to the different deadlines set forth in the statute depending on whether an offender is becoming homeless, moving to a residence in the same county, or moving to a new county. He first contends that failure to register is an alternative means crime for which the state failed to bring forth "substantial evidence" for each alternative means. Secondly, Peterson argues that residential status is an element of the crime of failure to register and that the state failed to prove this element.
Today the Court holds that failure to register is not an alternative means crime. The Court further holds that "Peterson registered outside of any deadline contained in the statute. It was therefore unnecessary to show his particular residential status in order to prove a violation of the statute." Justice Stephens wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. (briefs and argument)
State v. Vance, No. 81393-1. Robert Vance challenges his exceptional consecutive sentences for multiple counts of child molestation and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. Citing Blakely v. Washington, Vance argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the judge determined that allowing Vance to serve all of his sentences concurrently would be "clearly too lenient."
The Court had delayed hearing this case until the United States Supreme Court decided a similar case, Oregon v. Ice. Today, in another unanimous decision and with an opinion by Justice Sanders, the Court finds that Ice does control the application of Blakely and Apprendi v. New Jersey to these facts. The federal High Court was convinced by "considerations [of] historical practice and respect for state sovereignty" that "a sentencing judge does not run afould of the Sixth Amendment by finding facts necessary to impose consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for discrete crimes." Vance's sentence, which had been set aside by the Court of Appeals, is reinstated. (briefs and argument)
Supreme Court restores convict's right to gun possession
Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2 (briefs and argument). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a legislative reclassification of a crime cannot apply retroactively for purposes of prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm. James Rivard was convicted of vehicular homicide in 1994. At the time, vehicular homicide was a class B felony, and only class A felons permanently forfeited their right to possess firearms. But a judge mistakenly sentenced Rivard to forfeiture of this right. The legislature subsequently amended the firearm statute to prohibit firearms to anyone convicted of a “serious offense,” including vehicular homicide.
After he was released from prison, Rivard petitioned for restoration of his firearm rights. The trial court, concluding that the reclassification had no retroactive effect, granted the petition. The Court of Appeals, however, held that the firearm regulations are regulatory rather than punitive, and so can be applied retroactively.
Today the Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing, rules that Rivard is not barred from possessing a firearm. “Because Rivard’s conviction for vehicular homicide remains a class B felony, he was eligible under RCW 9.41.040 to petition to have his right to possess a firearm restored. The trial court thus correctly restored his rights. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s decision.”
Library's Internet filter does not violate Washington Constitution
The Supreme Court today ruled that a library’s Internet filter policy does not violate the free speech protections in the Washington State Constitution. The case is Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 82200-0 (briefs and argument).
The North Central Regional Library District maintains Internet filters on its computers to block websites and images considered “harmful to children.” Library patrons were blocked from accessing numerous websites, including sites about drug and alcohol addiction, an art gallery website, health information websites, the “personals” section of Craigslist.org, the MySpace pages of presidential candidates, the Seattle Women’s Jazz Orchestra website, and womenandguns.com, a site maintained by the Second Amendment Foundation.
Several patrons and the Second Amendment Foundation sued the library in federal court for violating federal and state free speech protections. They claim the library’s filtering policy is overbroad and rises to the level of prior restraint of speech. They also argue that the filtering policy is an impermissible content-based restriction on speech. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington asked the Washington Supreme Court to address whether the library’s Internet filtering policy violates the free speech protections in Article 1, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.
The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Barbara Madsen writing, concluded that a library can filter Internet access for all patrons, including adults, without violating the Washington Constitution. The Court wrote that in many cases the Washington Constitution’s protection of free speech is no more expansive than the U.S. Constitution’s. In other contexts, the state constitution affords broader protections. For example, time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech will be upheld only upon a showing of a “compelling state interest.” Additionally, unlike the First Amendment, the state constitution prohibits prior restraints on constitutionally-protected speech.
Analyzing whether the library’s filtering policies were overbroad, Chief Justice Madsen wrote:
The principle that a library has no obligation to provide universal coverage of all constitutionally protected speech applies to Internet access just as it does to the printed word in books, periodicals, and other material physically collected and made available to patrons. “The Internet is simply another method for making information available in a . . . library’” and “is ‘no more than a technological extension of the book stack.’” A.L.A., 539 U.S. at 207 (quoting S. Rep. No. 106-141, at 7 (1999)). Just as it is entitled to exercise its acknowledged discretion in amassing a collection of printed materials physically placed on the shelves in order to carry out its mission, it is entitled to exercise discretion when it comes to Internet access involving its facilities and equipment.
The discretion that public libraries enjoy in selecting materials for their collections is not merely a function of what a library can afford in terms of costs and space . . . . [R]egardless of its resources a library need not place pornographic materials on its shelves, although such materials are constitutionally protected. It need not place children’s comic books on its shelves, although these, too, are constitutionally protected. As another example, if a private collector offered a library a collection of books at an attractive set price for the entire collection and the library purchased the collection, it would not have to include all of the books in its own collection and would not have to make them all available to its patrons.
The plaintiffs also argued that irrespective of the library’s policies, the Internet filtering software used was too aggressive, resulting in overbroad filtering of Internet content. The Court disagreed.
Here, if a library patron wants to access a web site or page that has been blocked by FortiGuard, he or she may send an e-mail to NCRL administrators asking for a manual override of the block. The site or page is reviewed to ascertain whether allowing access would accord with NCRL’s mission, its policy, and CIPA requirements. If not, the request is denied. If the request is approved, access will be allowed on all of NCRL’s public access computers.
Because adults can request and obtain unblocking of erroneously blocked sites, we conclude that on this record no overbreadth problem exists under article I, section 5 as a result of overblocking.
Ultimately, the Court held that just as a library may exercise discretion in its literary acquisitions, it can also decide what Internet content to provide.
Most importantly, just as a public library has discretion to make content-based decisions about which magazines and books to include in its collection, it has discretion to make decisions about Internet content. A public library can decide that it will not include pornography and other adult materials in its collection in accord with its mission and policies and, as explained, no unconstitutionality necessarily results. It can make the same choices about Internet access.
A public library has traditionally and historically enjoyed broad discretion to select materials to add to its collection of printed materials for its patrons’ use. We conclude that the same discretion must be afforded a public library to choose what materials from millions of Internet sites it will add to its collection and make available to its patrons.
The Court concluded that the filtering policy did not run afoul of the free speech protections in article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution.
Jim Johnson concurred with the result in a separate opinion, Justice Tom Chambers (joined by Justices Sanders and Stephens) dissented. He wrote:
North Central Regional Library’s Internet filters reach admittedly constitutionally protected speech, and, we are informed, it 'does not and will not disable the filter at the request of an adult person." Simply put, the State has no interest in protecting adults from constitutionally protected materials on the Internet. These policies do exactly that. The filter should be removed on the request of an adult patron. Concerns that a child might see something unfortunate on the screen must be dealt with in a less draconian manner.
Today's arguments, May 6, 2010
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases today.
In the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m.:
In re Richard Dale Shepard, No. 200,720-1. Was Shepard appropriately suspended from the practice of law for two years after violating various Rules of Professional Conduct?
State v. Doughty, No. 82852-1 (briefs). A police officer observed Walter Doughty drive up to a drug house at 3:20 a.m., stop for two minutes, and leave. The officer stopped Doughty, discovered that he was driving with a suspended license, and upon searching him found that he had, indeed, bought drugs. Doughty claims that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. The issue in this case is whether Doughty's actions created reasonable suspicion for the officer to conduct a Terry stop. Doughty was convicted in Spokane County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.
In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m.:
In re Hawkins, No. 82907-1 (briefs). The issue here is whether RCW 71.90 authorizes pretrial polygraph tests. The state filed a petition to commit Jake Hawkins, who was reaching the end of his sentence for rape, as a sexually violent predator. Pursuant to RCW 71.90, the trial court ordered Hawkins to submit to a sexual history polygraph test prior to the hearing. Hawkins appealed the order, claiming that RCW 71.90 does not authorize pretrial polygraph tests. The court of appeals interpreted RCW 71.90 to allow such tests, and thus affirmed the order.
Tomorrow's opinions, May 6, 2010
The Supreme Court will issue opinions in several cases tomorrow, including a case dealing with Internet filters in libraries.
Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District, No. 82200-0 (briefs and argument). Whether library Internet filters violate the Washington Constitution’s free speech provision. The North Central Regional Library District maintains Internet filters on its computers to block web sites and images considered “harmful to children.” Several adult library patrons were blocked from accessing sites on topics such as firearms, art, abuse, dating, and health. They asked the library to unfilter the sites, but were refused. The patrons and a nonprofit whose site was among those blocked sued in federal court. As past cases have found that Washington’s free speech protections are stronger than their federal counterparts, the U.S. District Court asked the state Supreme Court to address the state constitutional issues before it proceeds with the federal claims.
Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2 (briefs and argument). Whether the statutory prohibition on possessing firearms for felons who commit a “serious offense” can be applied retroactively after the definition of “serious offense” was modified by the legislature.
State v. Lucero, No. 83777-5. Defendant appeals conviction of assault with a deadly weapon in the second degree and sentencing based on an offender score of 7.
State v. Peterson, No. 82089-9 (briefs and argument). Whether the state must prove the time limit requirement in order to convict a sex offender for failure to register.
State v. Vance, No. 81393-1 (briefs and argument). Whether the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires that a jury, not a judge, make findings of fact to support an exceptional consecutive sentence?
State auditor issues report on Supreme Court
The Washington Policy Center notes that the State Auditor's Office issued an audit finding yesterday related to the Supreme Court's cash receipt practices. The Court collects an average of $62,000 each year in filing fees, copy charges, fines, and other charges. The Auditor's Office writes: "the Court’s internal controls are inadequate to prevent or detect the misappropriation of public funds" and the Auditor provided several recommendations for preventing or detecting misappropriation of funds. The Court indicated that it would implement procedures to mitigate risk.
This week at the Supreme Court, May 3, 2010
This week the Supreme Court begins its Spring Term and will resume hearing arguments on Thursday. The Court may also issue opinions on Thursday.
The Court also announced that an exhibit commemorating the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage in Washington State will remain on display in the Temple of Justice in Olympia until further notice. The exhibit honors a series of "firsts" accomplished by women in the state's legal profession, and is open to the public from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
New cases accepted for review
The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review last week.
- Cary v. Mason County, No. 83937-9
- In re Marriage of Farmer, No. 83960-3
- State v. Hartzell & Tieskotter, No. 84017-2
- State v. Kosewicz, No. 83682-5
- State v. Perez-Valdez, No. 84003-2
- Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Wash. State Dept of Rev., No. 84101-2.
- Harris v. Hon. Edsonya Charles, No. 83867-4.
- Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 83883-6
- State v. Posey, No. 82957-8
- State v. Mullen, No. 83981-6
- Personal Restraint Petition of Chad Alan Pierce, No. 83731-7
- Personal Restraint Petition of Eric Sheridan Flint, No. 83815-1
