Criminal Law

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According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant drove the wrong way on an on-ramp and hit another vehicle.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 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 Supreme Court Addresses Requirements for Juvenile Arrest Warrants

August 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the court rule and statute related to juvenile bench warrants can be harmonized.

Upon a guilty plea to fourth degree assault in March 2022, the juvenile was sentenced to seven months’ community supervision with a number of conditions.

The state moved for a bench warrant later that month, alleging the juvenile posed a serious threat to public safety pursuant to JuCR 7.16. The state alleged she was associating with an older male with gang associations, a criminal history, and a pending investigation relating to an alleged crime against the juvenile. The state argued his criminal history and the age difference “creates a situation where [the juvenile] too poses a serious threat to community safety.”

King County Administrative Booking Procedure Violates Washington State Constitution Protections

August 14, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Washington State Constitution provides additional protection, with article I, section 7 protecting individuals from disturbances into their private affairs without authority of law. The Washington Supreme Court recently determined that the administrative booking procedure used in King County violated article I, section 7.

The defendant was charged with a felony in King County. He was not arrested or booked, but summonsed to appear at arraignment.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on his personal recognizance with certain conditions.

Washington Marijuana Manufacturing Conviction Reversed for Lack of Probable Cause for Warrant

July 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution require probable cause for a search warrant to be issued. Evidence obtained from an illegal search must be suppressed. State v. Betancourth. Even if a search warrant was obtained, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant must be suppressed if there was not probable cause. State v. Gudgell.

A defendant recently challenged his convictions, arguing the there was not probable cause for the search warrant. According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals of the appeals court, he was charged with the manufacture of marijuana after law enforcement found 149 cannabis plants inside his home.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant had not been supported by probable cause. The court denied his motion to suppress and found him guilty in a bench trial.

Washington Juvenile Assault Convictions Reversed Due to Lack of Evidence of Intent

June 23, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Incidents that lead to Washington assault charges can often be hectic events with multiple people involved, especially if there are people trying to intervene. In a recent unpublished opinion, a juvenile challenged fourth degree assault convictions, arguing the state had failed to prove he intended to hit his siblings with a door.

The appeals court described the incident as follows. The juvenile was arguing with his stepmother in his room. His father came into the room and the juvenile got angry and punched him “a couple of times,” according to the appeals court’s opinion. The father went outside.

The juvenile followed, but other members of the family tried to stop him. He hit his stepmother in the stomach. His brother tried to hold the door closed. As the juvenile opened the door, it hit his brother’s arm and his sister’s head. The juvenile punched his father multiple times and his stepmother called 911. The juvenile fled before the ambulance arrived.

Application of Confrontation Clause to Forensic Tests in Washington Criminal Cases

June 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Washington Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution give a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses against them. Testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial are only permitted if the witness was unavailable and the defendant had previously had the opportunity to cross-examine them. The Washington Supreme Court recently reconsidered whether the testimony of a supervisor instead of the lab technician who actually performed testing implicated the protections of the confrontation clause.

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in drug paraphernalia spilling onto the road from her trunk. The defendant was taken to the hospital, so no field sobriety tests were performed. A state trooper went to the hospital and saw that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, with dilated pupils. He obtained a search warrant for a blood test.

The blood test showed 1.5±0.40 nanograms per milliliter of TCH in the defendant’s blood.

Washington Appeals Court Determines Deferred Prosecution Not Limited to 5 Years

May 9, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In some circumstances, a person charged with a Washington misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor may petition for deferred prosecution. Deferred prosecution can be an alternative to punishment for individuals who would benefit from treatment. The individual generally must cooperate with and complete the treatment program. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could “extend” a deferred prosecution order.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence (“DUI”) in December 2013. She petitioned for a deferred prosecution and the court accepted the petition and approved the treatment plan for her alcohol use disorder.

Multiple probation officers notified the court the defendant violated the conditions of the order between 2015 and 2021.

Washington Law Prohibiting Inclusion of Most Juvenile Adjudications in Offender Score Applies Prospectively

April 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington juvenile adjudication of guilt can have lifelong consequences. Current Washington law limits the types of adjudications that can be included in calculating an offender score for a subsequent sentencing, but until recently, other non-violent juvenile adjudications could also affect an offender score. In a recent case, the state challenged a trial court’s application of the 2023 statutory amendment limiting the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in an offender score because the amendment took effect after the offense occurred.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery in April 2023. The legislature amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) in July 2023, which was after the incident leading to the charges and before the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing. The amended statute prohibits most juvenile adjudications from being included in a defendant’s offender score.

The defendant pleaded guilty in October. He had previously been adjudicated guilty of second degree assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile. This adjudication would have been 2 points under RCW 9.94A.525 before the amendment. The trial court, however, applied the current version of the statute because it took effect before calculation of the defendant’s offender score and his sentencing. The trial court determined the defendant had an offender score of 0, resulting in a standard sentencing range of three to nine months. The court sentenced him to five months confinement.

Washington Appeals Court Addresses Mixed-Motive Traffic Stop

April 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A defendant recently challenged his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (“UPF”). The convictions arose from a traffic stop, which the defendant argued was pretextual. He also challenged his UPF conviction on constitutional grounds.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a police officer on patrol saw a parked vehicle pull out without signaling. The bumper obscured the front plate and the rear plate light was not working. He stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the defendant.

The officer saw drug paraphernalia in an open bag on the seat. The defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked that consent. The officer obtained a warrant and seized evidence from the vehicle, including a handgun, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia.