Today's opinions - April 7, 2011
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, No. 83030-4. The Supreme Court ruled that an action against Twin Commander, an airplane manufacturer, was time barred. A crash occurred in Mexico in May 2004, killing seven government agents on board. Kenneth Burton, personal representative of the decedents’ estates, filed a wrongful death action against Twin Commander. Twin Commander moved to a decision on the basis of the General Aviation Revitalization Act. The law bars actions against aircraft manufacturers if the accident occurs 18 years after delivery of the aircraft to the first purchaser. The trial court ruled in Twin Commander’s favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that Twin Commander has failed to prove that it is a “manufacturer” of the aircraft, and was thus covered by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Barbara Madsen writing, reversed the Court of Appeals. Justice Debra Stephens and two others dissent.
In re PRP of Carlos John Williams, No. 84711-8. Carlos Williams, an inmate at Monroe Correctional Center, filed two civil complaints for monetary damages against the Department of Corrections, claiming cruel and unusual punishment and racial discrimination. The superior court treated both actions as postconviction challenges and referred them to the Court of Appeals for consideration as personal restraint petitions. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions as improperly seeking monetary relief. The Supreme Court (in a per curiam decision) reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the trial court to treat Williams’ actions as civil complaints.
State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Daniel Simms was convicted (among other things) of robbery, with sentence enhancement for use of a firearm. Because Simms had a previous conviction of assault with a firearm enhancement in 2000, the court doubled the firearm enhancements, adding 22 years to his sentence. Simms challenged the enhancement on appeal—specifically whether the state, in seeking a double firearm enhancement based on the prior imposition of a firearm enhancement, is required to allege in the information that the defendant has previously been sentenced to a firearm enhancement. The Court of Appeals held that the prior conviction was not essential to prove the enhancement itself, and that there is no requirement to give notice of a prior conviction “for purposes of a sentencing enhancement.” The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeals. Justice James Johnson wrote the decision of the court.
State v. Weaver, No. 84982-0. The Supreme Court previously granted Oliver Weaver’s petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that had affirmed his sentence for second degree child rape and second degree rape. The Supreme Court had ordered reconsideration by the Court of Appeals in light of State v. Mendoza (2009). On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals adhered to its original decision. Weaver again appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds today that Mendoza entitles Weaver to relief, reverses the Court of Appeals, and remand to the superior court for further proceedings.
