Notable Cases

In The Matter Of The Personal Restraint Petition of Young, PUBLISHED CASE, No. 51385-4-II, Washington Court of Appeals, Division II (April 26, 2022): Court Of Appeals Concluded Houston-Sconiers Expressly Limited Its Holding To Juvenile Defendants, And Petitioner Was Not A Juvenile When He Allegedly Committed His Offense. Therefore, That Case Is Not Material To Petitioner’s Sentence And RCW 10.73.100(6) Is Inapplicable. The Firm Is Filing a Motion For Discretionary Review With The Washington Supreme Court And Moving To Have The Time Bar Exception Extend To Defendants Older Than 18, Which Would Create New Law in Washington State If Granted.

Farris v. Gershick, No. 21-2-00964-18, Kitsap County Superior Court RALJ Appeal (February 10, 2022): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of An Order To Surrender Weapons Related To The Anti-Harassment Order Issued Against Appellant. The District Court Order Was Affirmed In Its Entirety.

State v. Arroyo, No. 54530-6-II, Washington Court of Appeals, Division II (July 7, 2021): First Degree Murder Conviction Reversed And Remanded For Resentencing Based On Client’s Youth At The Time Of Alleged Crime.

State v. Vigil, No. 379914-III, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III (August 26, 2021): Felony Convictions For Indecent Liberties And Voyeurism Reversed Based On An Evidentiary Error Made By The Trial Court. Case Remanded For A New Trial.

In The Matter Of The Personal Restraint Of Ali, PUBLISHED CASE, No. 95578-6, Washington Supreme Court (September 17, 2020): The Washington Supreme Court Held That Houston-Sconiers Constitutes A Significant And Material Change In The Law That Requires Retroactive Application. The Court Determined That Petitioner Established Actual And Substantial Prejudice And Remanded The Case Back To Superior Court For Resentencing. This Case Established A Time Bar Exception For Incarcerated Defendants Who Were Under 18 At The Time Of Their Alleged Crime To Petition For Resentencing If They Can Establish That Youth Was Not Considered At Sentencing.

State V. Faghihi, No. B296826, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1 (August 21, 2020): Successfully Defended Respondent Against An Appeal Of A Restraining Order Imposed Against Appellant. The Court Of Appeal Concluded That The Record Overwhelmingly Supported Granting Respondent’s Request For A Permanent Restraining Order.

State V. Loughbom, PUBLISHED CASE, No. 97443-8, Washington Supreme Court (August 20, 2020): The Washington Supreme Court Reversed The Court Of Appeals And Remanded For The Petitioner To Have A New Trial. The Washington Supreme Court Held That The State’s Framing Of Petitioner’s Prosecution As Representative Of The War On Drugs Denied Petitioner A Fair Trial And Constitutes Reversible Error.

State V. Ross, No. 81031-6-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (June 15, 2020): Appeal Granted. Washington Court Of Appeals Concluded The Trial Court Did Have Discretion To Consider Appellant’s Request For A New Sentencing Hearing In Light Of His Youth At The Time Of The Alleged Offenses And Thus Abused Its Discretion In Not Considering His Request. The Court Remanded To The Trial Court To Consider Whether To Grant Appellant A New Sentencing Hearing.

In Re Stewart On Habeas Corpus, No. S256789, Supreme Court Of California (May 27, 2020): Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Granted. Attempted Murder Conviction And Enhancements Transferred To The Orange County Superior Court, With Directions For The Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitation To Show Cause Why Petitioner Would Not Be Entitled To Relief In Light Of Senate Bill No. 620.

State V. J.J.W.D., No. 80648-3-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (March 2, 2020): Successfully Defended Respondent Against The State’s Appeal. The State Attempted To Have Respondent’s Juvenile Conviction Dismissed And Refiled In Adult Court. The Court Of Appeals Concluded That The Juvenile Court Did Have Authority To Enter The Judgment And Sentence Even Though Respondent Was Over 18 Years Old At The Time Of The Conviction Because The Parties Acted Below As If Juvenile Justice Act Authority Was Properly Extended.

State V. Pillon, No. 78599-1-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (January 27, 2020): PUBLISHED CASE. First Reported Washington Decision To Apply RCW 70.105.085, A Statute Related To Hazardous Substances, To A Fact Pattern Since Its Enactment In 1989 By Initiative Of The People. This Decision Is The First To Address And Apply The Statute.

Milburn V. Cossey, No. G056327, California Court Of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3 (January 27, 2020): Successfully Defended Respondent Against An Appeal Of A Restraining Order Imposed Against Appellant. Court Concluded There Was Sufficient Evidence To Uphold The Restraining Order And Affirmed The Order On Appeal.

Holt V. Iwanyk, No. 19-2-18714-0, King County Superior Court On RALJ Appeal (December 26, 2019): Order Denying A Protection Order Remanded To The Trial Court To Clarify The Basis Of Its Denial Of The Restraining Order Under RCW 10.14.080 (3), And To Consider With Adequate Findings The Applicability Of Respondent’s Laches Defense.

Lundt V. Lundt, No. 19-2-06134-6, Pierce County Superior Court On RALJ Appeal (December 6, 2019): Order Denying A Protection Order Reversed As A Result Of The Trial Court Erroneously Excluding Appellant’s Evidence At Trial. The Case Was Remanded For A New Trial As A Result Of The Reversible Error.

State V. Loughbom, No. 97443-8, Washington Supreme Court (December 5, 2019): The Washington Supreme Court Accepted Review Of A Direct Appeal Considering Whether The Prosecution Engaged In Flagrant And Ill-Intentioned Misconduct By Framing The Case Against The Appellant As “Yet Another Battle In The Ongoing War On Drugs Throughout Our State And Throughout Our Nation As A Whole.”

People V. Bowers, No. B289443, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3 (November 8, 2019): Possessing A Firearm As A Felon, Felon In Possession Of Ammunition, And Assault With A Semi-Automatic Firearm Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether The Lower Court Should Exercise Its Discretion To Strike Or Impose An Enhancement Under Section 186.22, Subdivision (G), And To Correct The Abstract Of Judgment To Reflect That The Trial Court Imposed A Concurrent Sentence On Count 6.

Personal Restraint Of Ali, No. 95578-6-I, Washington Supreme Court (November 6, 2019): The Washington Supreme Court Accepted Review Of A Personal Restraint Petition Considering Whether Petitioner’s Sentence Was Unlawful And Unconstitutional Because The Trial Court Failed To Consider Imposition Of A Downward Exceptional Sentence Based On Petitioner’s Youth As A Mitigating Factor. The Other Issue For Consideration Is Whether The Petition Is Timely Based On The Significant Change In Law Material To Petitioner’s Sentence And Whether The Change In Law Applies Retroactively.

People V. Sullivan, No. B288894, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7 (August 21, 2019): Assault With A Firearm Case Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether To Strike Or Impose An Enhancement Under Section 12022.5. The Court Of Appeal Stated It Was Concerned By The Trial Court’s Inference That Appellant Lacked Remorse Based Solely On His Intention To Exercise His Right To Appeal. The Court Of Appeal Directed The Trial Court To Consider All The Circumstances Of Appellant’s Case During Resentencing And To Resentence Appellant Without Punishing Him For Exercising His Appellate Rights.

Summit Homeowners Association V. Oakes, No. 77893-5-I (July 1, 2019): Represented Respondent And Successfully Defended Against Appeal Where Appellant Was Seeking Reversal Of The Attorneys’ Fees, Reversal Of Treble Damages, Reversal Of The Court’s Decision Declining To Offset The Judgment In Favor Of Respondent Against A Previous Judgment Against Respondent, And Arguing That The Lower Court Imposed An Improper Interest Rate. Respondent Prevailed On Every Argument On Appeal And The Judgment Was Affirmed.

City Of Auburn V. N.S., No. 18-1-07198-1 KNT, King County Superior Court On RALJ Appeal (June 7, 2019): Attempted Possession Of A Controlled Substance Conviction Reversed And Remanded. The Reviewing Court Ruled That The Trial Court Erred In Denying Appellant’s CrR 3.6 Motion To Suppress And Dismiss, Because The Initial Text Messages Leading To The Investigation And Arrest Of Appellant Were The Product Of Law Enforcement’s Unlawful Warrantless Search Of A Cellular Phone. The Reviewing Court Also Reversed The Conviction Because The Trial Court Erroneously Imposed A Discovery Sanction Against The Appellant That Prevented Appellant From Impeaching A Law Enforcement Officer With A Document At Trial.

People V. Daniel, No. B275303, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1 (March 21, 2019): Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether To Strike Any Enhancements Imposed Under Sections 12022.53 Or 667, Subdivision (A)(1). The Trial Court Was Ordered To Reduce The Sentence Accordingly If Any Of The Enhancements Are Stricken.

People V. Daniel, No. S253524, Supreme Court Of California (February 20, 2019): Petition For Review Granted. Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Transferred To The Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1, With Directions To Vacate Its Decision And Reconsider The Cause In Light Of Senate Bill No. 1393.

Personal Restraint Of Mandefero, No. 75682-6-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (January 14, 2019): Personal Restraint Petition Granted. First Degree Assault, Second Degree Assault, And Second Degree Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm Case Remanded To Trial Court For Resentencing Because Trial Court Erred In Failing To Consider Petitioner’s Youth As A Mitigating Factor Supporting An Exceptional Sentence Downward.

People V. Daniel, No. B275303, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1 (December 5, 2018): Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancement Which Was Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

Marriage Of Aronson And Aronson, No. 75734-2-I (September 4, 2018): Represented Wife On Appeal Of A Divorce Action. Court Of Appeals Concluded Trial Court Erred In Failing To Ascertain Whether The Stock Options Were Granted To Compensate Appellant For Past, Present, Or Future Employment Services. Case Remanded To Trial Court To Recharacterize The Stock Options And To Award Appellant Attorney Fees.

People V. Murray, No. C084981, California Court Of Appeal, 3rd District, Sacramento (August 1, 2018): Murder Conviction And Sentence Conditionally Reversed And Remanded To The Juvenile Court For A Juvenile Transfer Hearing To Determine Appellant’s Suitability Within The Juvenile Justice System. If Appellant Is Found Fit For The Juvenile Court System, He Will Be Resentenced As A Juvenile Instead Of An Adult.

People V. Nuby, No. B269910, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3 (July 25, 2018): Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancement Which Was Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

City Of Everett V. Smith, No. 17-1-02630-31, Snohomish County Superior Court On RALJ Appeal (July 3, 2018): Assault In The Fourth Degree (DV) Conviction Reversed Due To Prosecutorial Misconduct.

People V. Kellum, No. B268683, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4 (May 9, 2018): Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancements Which Were Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

State V. Ho, No. 77849-8-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (March 19, 2018):Personal Restraint Petition Transferred To Superior Court And Consolidated With A Criminal Rule 7.8 Motion. Court Granted Motion And Ordered That Petitioner, Originally Sentenced To 44 Years On Three Counts Of Assault In The First Degree And One Count Of First Degree Possession Of A Firearm, Be Resentenced In Light Of State V. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (2015) And In Re Petition Of Light-Roth, 200 Wn. App. 149, Review Granted, 189 Wn.2d 1030 (2017) Stating That A Defendant’s Youth May Justify A Downward Departure From The SRA So Long As There Is Evidence That Youth In Fact Diminished The Defendant’s Culpability.

People V. Robinson, No. BA274025, Los Angeles Superior Court (March 5, 2018): Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Granted. Court Ordered That Petitioner Be Resentenced On All Five Felony Convictions. Pursuant To The Holding In People V. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, Petitioner Should Not Have Been Resentenced To Both Sentencing Enhancements Pursuant To Section 186.22 Subdivision (B)(1)(C) And Section 12022.5, Subdivision (A)(1), In Both Counts 2 And 3. Petitioner Resentenced On July 25, 2018.

State V. Longan, No. C16-6053 BHS, United States District Court, Western District Of Washington (November 2, 2017): Certificate Of Appealability Issued On Federal Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Permitting Appellant’s Case To Proceed To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals.

People V. Kellum, No. S244786, California Supreme Court (December 20, 2017): Petition For Review Granted. Murder Conviction Transferred To The Court Of Appeal With Directions To Vacate Its Decision And Reconsider The Cause In Light Of S.B. 620.

Snapir V. Breliant, No. CC-17-1002-STaL, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Of The Ninth Circuit (November 3, 2017): Court’s Award Of Prejudgment Interest Vacated Due To The Court Giving No Reason For Departing From The Federal Interest Rate.

People V. Murray, No. C069856, California Court Of Appeal, 3rd District (April 14, 2017): Murder Conviction Judgment Of Sentence Reversed And Remanded To Trial Court Where Defendant Was Resentenced To 25 Years To Life Instead Of The Original Life In Prison Without Possibility Of Parole Sentence Due To The Sentencing Court Not Originally Considering All Of The Factors Relevant To Juvenile Sentencing. Mr. Parker Handled The Resentencing Hearing On April 14, 2017.

City Of Bellevue V. K.S., No. 16-1-05719-1 SEA (March 22, 2017): Assault In The Fourth Degree (DV) Conviction Reversed Due To Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Virabyan V. Muradyan Et Al, No. B265877, California Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7 (December 15, 2016): Reversal Of A Judgment Against The Client On A Civil Case Seeking Damages For Personal Injury With Directions To The Trial Court To Vacate The Order Granting The Motion For A Terminating Sanction Due To The Trial Court Abusing Its Discretion.

State V. Howe, No. 66543-0-I (November 12, 2012): Felony Drug Possession With Intent To Manufacture Or Deliver Overturned Due To A Warrantless Search Of The Appellant’s Vehicle.

State V. Lozano, No. 41177-6-II (March 27, 2012): Second Degree Rape Conviction Overturned Due To The Court Improperly Joining Two Rape Cases.

State V. Rose, No. 175 Wn.2d 10, Washington Supreme Court (March 13, 2012): Second Degree Possession Of Stolen Property Conviction Reversed And Remanded With Instructions To Dismiss. The Washington Supreme Court Concluded There Was Insufficient Evidence To Sustain The Conviction For Possession Of An Access Device Because The Stolen Access Device In Question Was A Credit Card That Defendant Removed From The Trash In Another Person’s Home And The Card Was An Unactivated And Unsigned Card Received In A Mail Solicitation. The Court Concluded There Was No Evidence The Card In Question Could Be Used To Obtain Something Of Value.

State V. Rowe, No. 61424-0-I (October 26, 2009): A Condition In The Judgment And Sentence Required Correction And The Case Was Remanded For Resentencing.

State V. Leverett, No. 57521-0-I. (November 13, 2006): Driving Under The Influence Conviction Overturned Due To The Jury’s Receipt Of The Police Report Referencing The Fact Of A Blood Draw When The Breath Test Had Been Suppressed. Mr. Parker Assisted In Drafting The Brief As The Law Clerk To Attorney Scott Robbins.

State V. Ross, No. 81031-6-I, Washington Court Of Appeals, Division I (June 15, 2020): Appeal Granted. Washington Court Of Appeals Concluded The Trial Court Did Have Discretion To Consider Appellant’s Request For A New Sentencing Hearing In Light Of His Youth At The Time Of The Alleged Offenses And Thus Abused Its Discretion In Not Considering His Request. The Court Remanded To The Trial Court To Consider Whether To Grant Appellant A New Sentencing Hearing.

Nuño V. California State University Bakersfield, Et Al., PUBLISHED CASE, No. F077889, California Court Of Appeal, 5th District (April 13, 2020): The Court Of Appeal Reversed The Trial Court Judgment Dismissing Appellant’s Discrimination And Retaliation Lawsuit In Violation Of The California Fair Employment And Housing Act. The Court Of Appeal Directed The Trial Court To Vacate Its Order Dismissing The Action With Prejudice And Enter A New Order Granting Appellant Leave To File An Amended Complaint And Move Forward With His Lawsuit Against The University. The Court Of Appeal Also Awarded Appellant His Costs On Appeal.

State v. Broussard, No. 37973-6-III, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III (June 22, 2021): Conviction for Controlled Substance Reversed Based On Recent Washington Supreme Court Case, State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) Making Possession Offenses Unconstitutional.

In Re Merchant On Habeas Corpus, No. CVRI2101147, Riverside Superior Court (June 4, 2021): Habeas Corpus Relief Granted. Case Ordered returned To The Trial Court For Resentencing In Light Of Senate Bill 1393 and Senate Bill 136.

Medina v. Medina, No. G058243, California Court Of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3 (June 4, 2021): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Judgment For Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Promissory Fraud, And Quiet Title. Judgment Affirmed With the Exception Of Promissory Fraud Claim.

State v. Kohlstaedt, No. 54212-9-II, Washington Court of Appeals, Division II (May 25, 2021): The Court Of Appeals Ordered Appellant To Be Resentenced. In Blake, The Supreme Court Held That Washington’s Strict Liability Drug Possession Statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), Violates State And Federal Due Process Clauses And Is Therefore Void. 197 Wn.2d at 195. A Conviction Based On An Unconstitutional Statute Cannot Be Considered In Calculating The Offender Score. See State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 187-88, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986). Accordingly, Appellant Was Entitled To Be Resentenced Because His Offender Score Included Unconstitutional Convictions.

State v. Harris, No. 37185-9-III, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III (May 6, 2021): Court of Appeals Remanded Case Back To Trial Court For Resentencing Based On Recent Washington Supreme Court Case, State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) Making Possession Offenses Unconstitutional.

State of Washington v. Said Ali, No. 20-830, United States Supreme Court (March 29, 2021): Successfully Defended Juvenile Defendant Against The State Of Washington’s Petition For Writ of Certiorari Filed In The US Supreme Court Seeking To Reverse Washington Supreme Court Opinion In Juvenile’s Favor. Juvenile Client Will Be Resentenced Based On The Trial Court Not Meaningfully Considering His Youth In Sentencing.

Sawyer v. Sawyer, PUBLISHED CASE, No. H046558, California Court Of Appeal, 6th District (November 20, 2020): Published Case Involving The Staying Of Enforcement Of Arrears In Connection With Child Support.

Turner v. Turner, No. E071949, California Court Of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2 (October 20, 2020): Represented Husband On Appeal Of A Divorce Action. Court Of Appeal Vacated The Judgment And Concluded That The Trial Court Erred And Reduced The Amount Of The Award Owed To Wife.

Senise V. Trifunovic, No. 19-2-32724-3, King County Superior Court On ALJ Appeal (September 28, 2020): Order Granting A Protection Order Against Appellant Reversed As A Result Of Insufficient Evidence Demonstrating A Course Of Conduct. The District Court Decision Was Reversed And The Order For Protection Against Appellant Was Vacated.

Pederson v. McGillen, No. 37112-3-III, Washington Court of Appeals, Division III (July 8, 2021): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Protection Order. The Appellate Division Affirmed The Trial Court Decision.

Webster v. Litz, PUBLISHED CASE, No. 81547-4-I, Washington Court of Appeals, Division I (July 6, 2021): Published Case That Reaffirmed The Standard For A Landlord’s Relief. The Washington Court of Appeals Concluded That A Trial Must Proceed If There Are Substantial Issues Of Material Fact.

Cucamonga Holdings, Inc. v. Obienu, No. BV033364, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, Appellate Division (June 16, 2021): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Judgment Of Unlawful Detainer. The Appellate Division Affirmed The Trial Court Judgment.

Milne v. Rista, No. 355862, Michigan Court of Appeals (September 23, 2021): Michigan Court Of Appeals Concluded That The Trial Court Improperly Inferred That Because Appellant Could Work At Some Level, She Could Work Full Time And Earn Minimum Wage. Trial Court Also Completely Ignored The Cost Of Childcare During Appellant’s Parenting Time. Given The Inadequacy Of The Trial Court’s Analysis, The Case Was Affirmed In Part And Remanded For Further Proceedings Consistent With The Opinion.

Knight v. Knight, No. 53793-1-II, Washington Court of Appeals, Division II (September 21, 2021): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Family Law Appeal Related To The Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, Final Parenting Plan, And Child Support Order. The Superior Court Orders Were Affirmed In Their Entirety.

Morgan v. Finerty, No. 21-2-03807-3 SEA, King County Superior Court RALJ Appeal (September 15, 2021): Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of An Anti-Harassment Order. The Superior Court Order Was Affirmed And Attorney’s Fees Were Awarded For Respondent.