Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Supreme Court Remands Case for Resentencing Court to Meaningfully Consider Defendant’s Youthfulness

November 21, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Supreme Court recently considered a case in which a resentencing court declined to consider the defendant’s youthfulness at the time he committed the crime. According to Court’s opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder for a crime that occurred when he was 18 years old. His offender score was 4, including a prior drug possession conviction. The standard sentencing range was 225-325 months and he was sentenced to 300 months. The judge also imposed restitution, jointly and severally with his codefendants, including part of the victim’s funeral expenses.

The Washington Supreme Court held that former RCW 69.50.4013(1), part of the simple drug possession statute, violated due process rights and was void in State v. Blake. After State v. Blake, the defendant was eligible to have his unlawful drug possession conviction vacated. This caused his offender score to drop to 3, thereby lowering the standard range.

The defendant requested that his youthfulness be considered in resentencing. The resentencing judge stated, “. . . that’s a different issue than the one we’re talking about today.”

Characterization of Property Acquired During Marriage with Traceable Funds in Washington Divorce Case

November 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The court in a Washington divorce case has broad discretion in characterizing the parties’ assets. Characterization is determined as of the date of acquisition and generally does not change. Separate property continues to be separate while it can be traced or identified. Property acquired during the marriage may be separate property if it was acquired with the traceable proceeds of a spouse’s separate property. There is, however, a presumption that property acquired while the parties are married is community property. A spouse claiming that property acquired during the marriage is separate has the burden of showing it is separate through clear and convincing evidence. In a recent unpublished case, a former wife challenged the characterization of property purchased during the marriage.

Before the parties got married in 1999, they signed a prenuptial agreement stating the husband would maintain ownership of the property he had at the time of the marriage. He owned property in Montana before the marriage.

The parties divorced in 2002. The court awarded the husband the property he owned when they got married in accordance with the prenuptial agreement.

Federal Court Dismisses Expelled Student’s Equal Protection Claims in Title IX Case

October 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Students who experience disciplinary action resulting from Title IX allegations sometimes file their own Title IX lawsuit against the school, alleging the investigation and disciplinary process was discriminatory. In addition to Title IX claims, they may file equal protection, breach of contract, and other claims. In a recent case, school employees sought dismissal of the student’s equal protection claims with prejudice.

The plaintiff alleged he was expelled from a Nebraska university after being falsely accused of rape. He alleged the investigation and Title IX hearing were biased. He also alleged that the chair of the hearing board and the Title IX Coordinator had violated his constitutional rights by treating him differently because of sex-based discriminatory animus.

He filed § 1983 claims against the university employees in their individual capacities alleging they violated his equal protection rights. He asked for “compensatory and emotional damages.” He also sought a permanent injunction prohibiting references to the investigation in his records and a declaration the adjudication had violated his rights to equal protection.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Possession Adjudication Resulting from School Search

October 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

School authorities may search students and their property in circumstances that the police could not. In a recent case, a juvenile challenged a juvenile court adjudication of knowingly possessing cannabis after a school district safety coordinator searched his vehicle.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the school district security coordinator saw the juvenile get out of his car in the high school parking lot, hold something like he was smoking it, and put it in what appeared to be a pocket on the car door.

The security coordinator detained the juvenile and the school contacted his mother. The security coordinator and the juvenile’s mother searched the car together. They found a jar containing what was later determined to be cannabis.

Washington Appeals Court Determines State Did Not Breach Plea Agreement

October 26, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In many Washington criminal cases, a plea agreement may be an appropriate resolution. A plea agreement is a contract, and in some circumstances, that contract may be breached. When the state agrees to a sentencing recommendation, it does not have to be enthusiastic in making that recommendation to the court, but it may breach the agreement if it undermines the terms of the agreement. The state may undercut the plea agreement by providing the sentencing court with unsolicited information. An appeals court considers the effect the state’s actions had and not the state’s intent. A defendant recently challenged his sentence, arguing the state had breached the plea agreement.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant drove the wrong way on an on-ramp and hit another vehicle. Two people in the other car died and a third received treatment at the hospital. The passenger in the defendant’s vehicle was also injured. The defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.14 within two hours after the wreck.

The state ultimately charged the defendant with two counts of vehicular homicide. The state had charged the defendant with vehicular assault of his passenger, but later dropped that charge. The defendant agreed to plead guilty on both counts and stipulated his offender score was 2. The state agreed to make a sentence recommendation of 95 months concurrent confinement, which was the low end of the sentencing range.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Committed Intimate Relationship Property Division

October 13, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington recognizes committed intimate relationships (“CIRs”), which are cohabiting relationships that are stable and like a marriage, although both parties know they are not lawfully married. Washington courts will distribute community-like property from a CIR in a just and equitable manner. A man recently appealed a property division after a court found he had been in a CIR with his former partner.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties were involved in a CIR between 2009 and 2021. The man conceded the existence of the CIR on appeal. The man owned a home in Seattle and the woman moved into it with him in June 2009. They moved to Bainbridge Island in approximately 2011 and remained there until the CIR ended in July 2021.

The woman petitioned for a distribution of the parties’ community-like property. She testified she had helped with the mortgage and other expenses when they lived in Seattle. She did not however, testify regarding the value of her work or whether it increased the value of the home.

Department of Education Finds Public School District in Violation of Title IX for Response to Locker Room Incident

September 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Department of Education recently issued a press release stating that it found a Virginia public school district had violated Title IX by failing to respond to sexual harassment reports.

According to news reports, the school had a policy allowing students to use locker rooms and restrooms aligning with their gender identity. Male students allegedly harassed a transgender student in the boys’ locker room. According to the press release, that student recorded two male students in the locker room. Title IX complaints were filed by the parents of all three students.

According to the press release, the school did not “treat the male students equitably throughout the Title IX investigation process. . .” The press release stated the school had not meaningfully investigated the male students’ complaints, “yet thoroughly investigated the female student’s sexual harassment complaint. . .”

Father Failed to Show Adequate Cause for a Washington Parenting Plan Modification Hearing

September 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A parent seeking modification of a Washington parenting plan must meet the statutory criteria for modification. A father recently challenged a court’s determination he failed to show adequate cause for a hearing on his modification petition.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the parties divorced in April 2019 and the court entered an agreed parenting plan, which did not establish a residential schedule. The parenting plan provided the four children would live with their mother, except scheduled to live with the father. The parties were to engage in a good faith effort to reach an agreement for the schedule for the month by the 20^th of the preceding month.

The father petitioned for a minor modification in February 2020, alleging there was no mandatory minimum residential time for him and the mother intentionally kept him from having residential time.

Washington Supreme Court Concludes Second Degree Assault and Felony Harassment Convictions Didn’t Violate Double Jeopardy

September 26, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Washington State Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protect individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy” for the same offense. The double jeopardy clause protects a person from being tried twice for the same offense and from receiving multiple punishments for the same offense. Double jeopardy may be an issue even if a defendant’s sentences are concurrent. In fact, the Washington Supreme Court has held that multiple convictions for the same offense are prohibited by the double jeopardy clause. The Washington Supreme Court recently considered whether a defendant’s convictions for second degree assault and felony harassment violated double jeopardy.

According to the Court’s opinion, the family was watching a movie on the night of the incident. Their sixteen-year-old asked for a ride the following day. The defendant offered, but the child requested the wife do it instead. The defendant “got very angry” and claimed the wife was “undermining him.” According to the wife, the defendant yelled at her for about 30 minutes before she went upstairs to help the children get ready for bed.

The children went to bed on the third floor and the wife went the second floor. The defendant went to the garage to get his guns ready for the shooting range.

Washington Court Allowed to Correct Expiration Date of DVPO as Clerical Error

September 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington protection order generally must state the date when it expires. If the order is to be permanent, the court should set its expiration date at 99 years from the date it is issued. RCW 7.105.310(5). A former wife recently appealed an order purportedly clarifying the expiration date of a renewal of a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) against her former husband.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023. She indicated she wanted the order to remain in effect “permanently” and asked the court to renew the order for the “maximum period allowed by law.” She described ongoing communication and contact by the ex-husband. The ex-husband denied the allegations and asked the court to deny the renewal.

The ex-wife and her attorney appeared in person at the hearing, while the husband and his attorney appeared by video conference. The court granted the renewal motion. The body of the renewal order did not identify the expiration date. Instead, there was a line in the caption of the order that stated: “Renewal Expires: 11/21/2122.”