Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Community Custody Condition Limiting Geographic Movement Was Unconstitutionally Vague

February 9, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Sentences for certain Washington criminal offenses may include community custody. The specific conditions of a defendant’s community custody depend on the offense for which the defendant was convicted. In some circumstances, certain community custody conditions are mandatory, some may be waived by the court, and others are discretionary. In a recent case, a defendant successfully challenged a community custody condition as unconstitutionally vague.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the facts were undisputed. The defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree with a deadly weapon following an incident in which he attacked someone with a broom. The defendant was sentenced within the standard range and the court also imposed certain community custody conditions. One condition required the defendant to stay in the geographic boundaries either identified by the corrections officer in writing or stated in the Stay Out of Drug Area order.

The defendant appealed this condition, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague.

Washington Supreme Court Addresses Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders With Plea Agreements

January 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Pursuant to State v. Houston-Sconiers, a trial court must consider the mitigating qualities of a juvenile offender’s youth in sentencing a juvenile in a Washington criminal case. The court has discretion to impose a sentence below the standard range in juvenile cases. In a recent case, a juvenile defendant challenged his sentence, which was based on a joint recommendation as a result of a plea deal.

According to the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion, the defendant fatally stabbed someone multiple times and stole his wallet. The defendant ultimately admitted to stabbing the victim. The defendant was charged with first degree murder with a deadly weapon and would have been subject to a standard range sentence between 240 to 320 months, plus a deadly weapon enhancement.

Following lengthy negotiation, the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery and second degree murder while armed with a deadly weapon. The standard range sentence was 41 to 54 months for the first degree robbery charge and 142 to 244 months for the second degree murder charge. The state and the defendant jointly recommended a sentence that would total 244 months of confinement.

Federal Court Vacates 2024 Title IX Final Rule

January 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A federal court in the Eastern District of Kentucky recently issued an order vacating the 2024 Title IX Final Rule.

The court concluded the Department of Education (“Department”) exceeded its statutory authority with the Final Rule. According to the court’s opinion, the Department cited the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. In support of the Final Rule. In Bostock, the Supreme Court concluded termination of an employee because of transgender status violated the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court noted that “transgender status [is] inextricably bound up with sex,” and therefore concluded discrimination based on transgender status meant the employer was intentionally treating the person differently because of their sex.

The Eastern District of Kentucky, however, determined the Department was applying the Bostock holding too broadly. The court noted the Bostock holding was expressly limited to Title VII. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit previously acknowledged that the definition of discrimination under Title VII under Bostock did not apply to other anti-discrimination laws. The court also pointed out that Title VII and Title IX “use materially different language.” Title VII references discrimination “because of sex,” while Title IX prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex.” Additionally, Title VII and Title IX have different goals and different defenses. Tennessee v. Cardona.

Washington Appeals Court Considers Application of Multiple Transaction Aggravator in Drug Case Sentencing

January 20, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A court may only impose a sentence above the standard range in a Washington criminal case if it finds substantial and compelling reasons that justify it. This finding must be based on specific aggravating circumstances that have been determined beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. In drug trafficking cases, a “major violation” of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (“VUCSA”) can support a sentence greater than the standard range. One factor that may identify a major violation of VUCSA is if the current offense involves multiple transactions. RCW 9.94A.535. A defendant recently challenged her exceptional sentence, based on the multiple transactions aggravator.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the defendant sold methamphetamine and pills that appeared to be Oxycodone but were actually fentanyl three separate times over a three month period.

The state charged her with a separate charge for each type of drug she sold at each sale and three charges for each sale of counterfeit Oxycodone. The state included a sentence enhancement, arguing each offense was a major violation pursuant to RCW 9.94A.535(3)(e)(i), the multiple transgressions aggravator.

Division of Property Owned with a Third Party in a Washington Divorce

January 12, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property division can be complicated when the parties to a Washington divorce co-own property with a third party. In a recent case, a wife appealed a property division that did not consider the mortgage on the wife’s brother’s share of the property in the valuation.

The husband petitioned for divorce in 2019. According to the opinion of the appeals court, the parties purchased a piece of property with the wife’s brother during the marriage. The parties paid cash for their 50% interest, while the wife’s brother took out a mortgage.

At trial, the husband testified he did not think there was any debt on the wife’s interest in the property. The wife’s brother testified he paid for his share of the property with a mortgage, but testified if he were to default, “it’s her responsibility.”

Court Allows Accused Male Student’s Title IX Lawsuit to Proceed Under Pseudonym

December 29, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Alleged victims of sexual misconduct are often allowed to proceed in their Title IX lawsuits under a pseudonym, but courts have recently been split on whether to allow accused students filing Title IX lawsuits based on the school’s investigatory or disciplinary processes to do the same. A federal court in Colorado recently decided to allow a male student accused of sexual misconduct to proceed with his lawsuit against the university and related defendants under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

The plaintiff was a student at a Colorado university who filed suit against the university and related defendants following an accusation that he had sexual contact with a child during behavioral therapy school. He alleged the investigation did not provide him with due process and was biased against him based on his sex. He alleged violations of due process rights and Title IX and other causes of action.

He filed a Motion for Leave to Restrict Access Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2, seeking to proceed anonymously “due to the highly personal, sexually explicit, and confidential nature of the allegations” and concerns for reprisal that could affect his education and result in academic, financial, or mental harm.

Washington Appeals Court Concludes Physical Control Statute Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague

December 26, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Generally, a Washington criminal law must be sufficiently specific to notify an ordinary person of what conduct it prohibits and provide ascertainable standards of guilt to prevent arbitrary enforcement. In a recent case, a defendant challenged the statute prohibiting being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence after she was found sleeping in the passenger seat of her parked vehicle.

The defendant was charged with being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence. According to the appeals court’s opinion, an officer found her sleeping in the passenger seat of her vehicle while parked with the engine running. She moved to dismiss, arguing the law was unconstitutionally vague.

The city argued the statute was constitutional and that “actual physical control” can include someone in the passenger seat of a non-moving vehicle.

Washington Court Finds House Purchased a Month Before Marriage Remained Separate Property

December 15, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Characterization of property as separate or community in a Washington divorce case is determined at the date the property was acquired. An increase in separate property’s value is presumed to also be separate property. Separate property remains separate unless there is clear and convincing evidence showing it was converted to community property. Generally, a written acknowledgement is required to rebut the separate property presumption for real property. In a recent unpublished case, a Washington appeals court considered whether a trial court erred in characterizing equity in separate real property as community property.

A month before the marriage, the wife purchased a home for $207,000 with a $40,000 down payment. The parties got married in September 2016 and their son was born the same day. The wife generally stayed home caring for the child.

The husband petitioned for divorce in June 2022. The parties separated at the end of June. They agreed the marital home, which was the one purchased by the wife before the marriage, was worth $402,000. They also agreed it was the wife’s separate property, but the husband claimed he had an “equitable interest” in the property and asked the equity, less the wife’s down payment, be divided equally.

Washington Appeals Court Overturns Felony Violation of A Court Order Conviction

December 7, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Pursuant to RCW 7.105.450(1)(a), a violation of a Washington domestic violence protection order is generally a gross misdemeanor. A violation can be a felony, however, if it constitutes an assault “that does not amount to assault in the first or second degree.” RCW 7.105.450(4). In a recent unpublished case, a Washington appeals court considered whether a defendant can be convicted of both a felony violation of a no contact order under RCW 7.105.450(4) and assault in the second degree under RCW 9A.36.021(1)(a) for the same acts.

An April 2022 no contact order prohibited the defendant from having contact with the protected person, identified by the appeals court as “C.S.,” or coming within 1,000 feet of her or her residence for 10 years.

According to the court’s opinion, C.S. called 911 in September 2022. She said the defendant had been staying with her and had kicked and “beat [her] up.” She said she had refused to give him a cigarette and he tried to steal her purse. She said there was a struggle when she grabbed it back and he punched her and knocked out her tooth. She said he kicked her and dragged her over rocks.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Community Property Characterization of House Purchased Before Marriage

November 29, 2024 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In many Washington divorce cases, characterization of property as separate or community can be a contentious issue. A property’s character is determined when it is acquired. Property that is established to be separate is presumed to remain separate unless there is sufficient evidence to show the intent to convert it to community property. Separate property can only be changed to community property if there is clear and convincing evidence of the spouse’s intent to convert it. Intent to convert property can be shown through a quitclaim deed, but there is not a presumption that a change in title from one spouse to both spouses converts property to community property. If a quitclaim deed has a stated purpose of establishing community property, the court can consider extrinsic evidence in determining intent. A husband recently challenged a court’s characterization of a house he bought before the marriage as community property.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the husband had purchased the home while he was single. He refinanced it during his first marriage and signed a quitclaim deed to himself and his first wife. He divorced his first wife in 2010 and he agreed during the divorce that the house was community property. He refinanced the house to remove his first wife’s name and pay her share of the community property as part of the divorce settlement.

The Trial

The parties got married in 2011. Both had been married before and had children and separate assets. Three of their six bank accounts were joint. Additionally, they had a joint investment account. The husband testified he used the parties’ paychecks and the wife’s child support payments to pay the family’s debts. He said they combined and commingled their accounts early in the marriage.