Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington Supreme Court

State v. Hughes

Hughes pled guilty to two counts of rape stemming from one act of sex with a child. While I am not generally on the side of the pedophiles, this does seem to pretty clearly violate double jeopardy. He asked the superior court to strike one conviction, and they refused to do so. The trial court also refused to impanel a Blakely jury on an exceptional sentence, feeling it did not have the authority to do so under the SRA. The COA held there was no DJ, and that the trial court had the ability to impanel a jury for an exceptional sentence under an indeterminate sentencing scheme.

The supreme court held there was DJ, and the exceptional sentence jury could be impaneled:

     For the purposes of double jeopardy analysis, we hold that, in this case, the two offenses are the same in fact and law. Here, the two offenses are the same in fact because they arose out of one act of sexual intercourse with the same victim. Here, both offenses are also the same in law. Although the elements of the crimes facially differ, both statutes require proof of nonconsent because of the victim's status. Regardless of whether nonconsent is proved by the age of the victim and the age differential between the victim and the perpetrator, or by the mental incapacity or physical helpless of the victim, both statutes protect individuals who are unable to consent by reason of their status. Therefore, these crimes do not pass the same elements analysis.

. . .

     Hughes next argues that under the current SRA, the trial court has no statutory authority to impose an exceptional minimum indeterminate sentence. Even if the SRA does not prohibit exceptional minimum indeterminate sentencing, Hughes argues that no statutory procedure exists for judicial fact-finding, therefore the trial court cannot impose such a sentence. His first argument fails, and the second issue he raises is not ripe for review.

I am too tired to get into SRA amendments, their applicability, and an in depth discussion. For the meat behind the SRA portion, please see the opinion.

For those going to AAJ, make it a point to say hello, I will be there!

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.