Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: 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 and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

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.

Washington Legal Roundup – Division I

State v. Anderson

Colleen Anderson was convicted of driving while license invalidated  in the first degree (DWLS 1).  Because she had had 4 prior DWLS 1 convictions, she was sentenced to a 180 day term of imprisonment under RCW 46.20.342.  She argued that because more than 7 years had passed since previous convictions, they should not have counted in determining whether she was a repeat offender.  This is what the driving under the influence statute provides.  She also requested that she be permitted to serve her sentence on electronic home monitoring (EHM).  The trial court denied both requests.

The Court of Appeals determined that the statute was ambiguous with regard to whether Ms. Anderson could serve her sentence on EHM and that the rule of lenity (i.e., ambiguity of a criminal statute is resolved in favor of the defendant) required that she be allowed to do so.  The Court of Appeals held, however, that the statute did not have any temporal restriction on prior convictions being considered. 

Note to self:  It seems a bit backwards, but apparently getting convicted for driving with a suspended license is worse than getting convicted for drunk driving.  At least the latter disappears from calculating your sentence as a repeat offender at some point.

Subscribe in a reader

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