Today's arguments - Jan. 20, 2011

Posted on January 20, 2011 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today (briefs, docket).

Morning session (starting at 9 a.m.)

State v. Posey, No. 82957-8. The issue here is whether the superior court had jurisdiction to sentence an offender for a juvenile offense after the offender had turned twenty-one years old. Daniel Posey, a 16-year-old, was charged with three counts of second degree rape and one count of first degree assault with a firearm. Since the assault was a “serious violent offense,” the juvenile court was required to decline jurisdiction and Posey was tried in superior court. He was convicted of two rape charges, but not the assault, and sentenced as an adult.

Posey appealed the adult sentence, since he had not been convicted of the assault, which is the crime that put him in superior court in the first place. The Supreme Court agreed, and Posey’s case was remanded to juvenile court for sentencing. However, by the time he got back to juvenile court Posey had turned 21.

Posey claimed that the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction to sentence him, and the trial court agreed. The trial judge adjourned juvenile court and reconvened as an adult court, sentenced Posey, and entered a protection order. Posey appeals, claiming that the adult court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the adult court had “residual jurisdiction” once the juvenile court’s jurisdiction ended.

In Re PRP of Flint, No. 83815-1. Whether the rule returning a criminal to prison after his third community custody violation hearing is ex post facto law when applied to a prisoner convicted before the law was passed. Eric Flint pleaded guilty to robbery, served time in prison, and was released to community custody. He was brought to three community custody violation hearings, at each of which he was found guilty of various community custody violations. The law at that time (RCW 9.94A.737) required him to be returned to prison after his third violation hearing, and he was.

The rule sending him back to prison had been passed into law after Flint’s conviction. Flint argues that the rule as applied to him is “ex post facto law” because it imposes a more severe punishment on him. The appellate court dismissed the petition as frivolous.

Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)

State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Whether the state must give notice of a prior firearm conviction in order to double the term for a firearm sentencing enhancement. Daniel Simms was convicted (among other things) of robbery with a firearm enhancement. The trial court doubled the length of confinement for the enhancement because Simms had a previous firearm conviction.

An information must include all the essential facts for the charged crime, including enhancements. The information with which Simms was charged did not mention his previous conviction. Simms claims that this conviction was an essential fact to the doubling of his firearm enhancement, and appeals. 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.”

In Re PRP of Coats, No. 83544-6. Jeffrey Coats pleaded guilty to robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit murder. Both his judgment and his plea statement listed incorrect maximum penalties for the conspiracy to commit robbery charge; both were too high. Although Coats’ conviction has been final for more than a year, he argues that the incorrect maximum makes his judgment facially invalid, allowing him to bring a personal restraint petition after the normal time limit. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that it was involuntary because he did not know the actual maximum penalty.

The Court of Appeals held that since Coats received a standard range sentence, the incorrect maximum penalty was a “technical misstatement that had no actual effect on the rights of the petitioner.” Thus, the court held that the judgment was not facially invalid and Coats’ petition was time barred.

The Supreme Court will review the question of whether the judgment and sentence are facially invalid.

Tags: , , , ,

New cases accepted for review

Posted on May 3, 2010 by Michael Reitz

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 


Cary v. Mason County, No. 83937-9. A group of property owners seek a declaration that a special assessment adopted by the Mason County Conservation District is an invalid and unconstitutional property tax. The superior court ruled in favor of the property owners, and the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed. (Note: The publisher of this blog filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the property owners’ petition for review.)

In re Marriage of Farmer, No. 83960-3. Daniel Farmer and Teresa Farmer entered into a dissolution agreement under which Teresa would receive one half of some community stock. After entering the agreement, but before the final dissolution decree, Daniel sold all of the stock options and fraudulently concealed the fact that he had done so until after entry of the decree. The trial court vacated the stock option provisions of the decree and awarded Teresa damages based an expert’s calculation of damages based on the value of the stock options. Daniel challenges the trial court’s determination of damages.

State v. Hartzell & Tieskotter, No. 84017-2. The Supreme Court granted review on the firearm enhancement issue and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals in light of State v. Williams-Walker (2010).

State v. Kosewicz, No. 83682-5. Theodore Kosewicz was convicted for aggravated first degree murder, first degree kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit first degree kidnapping. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) reversed the conviction for first degree kidnapping but affirmed the other convictions. The Supreme Court agreed only to hear the review the aggravating factor issue.

State v. Perez-Valdez, No. 84003-2. Alberto Perez-Valdez was convicted of second and third degree rape of a child. He appealed, arguing the trial court made several evidentiary errors, including allowing an investigator to testify that the alleged child victims were telling the truth.

Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Rev., No. 84101-2. Washington Imaging Services (WIS) collects funds from its patients and insurance companies and forwards the funds to Overlake Imaging Associates for radiological analysis. WIS did not pay business and operating taxes on these funds, concluding that the funds qualified under a “pass through” exemption that allows a business to exclude amounts it receives as an agent for a client from its taxable gross income. After an audit the Department of Revenue concluded WIS owed B & O tax for payments forwarded to Overlake Imaging. The trial court ruled for the Department of Revenue, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the ruling, holding that the pass through payments were not gross income and WIS should not pay B&O taxes on these amounts.

Harris v. Hon. Edsonya Charles, No. 83867-4. Joshua Harris was sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty to driving while license suspended in the third degree. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in King County Superior Court asking that the municipal court be ordered to give him credit for his time on electronic home monitoring. The Superior Court granted the writ. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed.

Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 83883-6. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals to review the constitutionality of House Bill 1653, enacted by the Washington Legislature this year. The legislation was in response to a Court of Appeals ruling which relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of state land use law as it then stood. House Bill 1653 amended land use law and purported to apply retroactively. For more on the case, see the Pacific Legal Foundation’s press release.

State v. Posey, No. 82957-8.

State v. Mullen, No. 83981-6. Lisa Mullen and Kevin Dean were convicted of stealing from their employer, Frontier Ford. After their trial Mullen and Dean discovered information from a related lawsuit that could have been useful in corroborating their defense at trial. They sought a new trial but the trial court and the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) both held the defendants could have obtained the evidence on their own, and that the evidence too speculative to be material.

Personal Restraint Petition of Chad Alan Pierce, No. 83731-7.

Personal Restraint Petition of Eric Sheridan Flint, No. 83815-1.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,