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 - WA Supreme Court: Community Placement Tolls for SVP Committment; Confessions May or May Not Depend on LImited Scope of Entry; Extra Time Spent in the Pen not Credited to Community Custody

Donaghe (hopefully not Jack, because that would break my heart...just checked, its Sam, we're good, turns out its spelled Donaghy...John Francis "Jack" Donaghy) got all rapey on people. He was incarcerated, then moved to SVP status and held on McNeil. For those that don't know, McNeil Island is where Washington keeps all its rapey people and pederasts (we also keep female pedophiles in there too, but I just like The Big Lebowski). He tried to get voting rights back. Held by a majority of five that the time of an SVP commitment tolls the start of community placement because, you know, you're not IN the community.


(Jack Donaghy: NOT rapey or breaking my heart)


In Eserjose, no new law was made. It was four on the majority, with one of those as result only. 4 in the dissent blocking whatever law was made with Madsen's concurrence. In this case, a confession was deemed admissible even though the deputies were only invited into the foyer. They climbed some stairs to make the arrest though they had no warrant. Anyhow, odd fact patter, odd result, no new law made, but criminal folks, you should probably read this and dissect the fact that its not actually law because it was a 4-4 split with Fairhurst punting as a result only.

Finally, in Jones, the court ruled 6-3 that time spend in excess of your incarceration sentence can't be credited to your community custody. Here's what went down:

The trial court amended Jones' original judgment and sentence to reflect an offender score of zero, and Jones was resentenced to 51 months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody.   By that time, Jones had already served  81months of incarceration.  The trial court credited Jones with time served toward his 51 month sentence of incarceration and ordered his release.  However, the trial court did not credit the excess 30 months of incarceration time toward his 36 months of community custody.

Now, I may be old fashioned, but if you've served an extra 30 months in the penn due to your sentencing being messed up, I think you should be entitled to a credit for lesser sentences. Sure, with molesters and what not, you do want to see how they behave in public, but its your F-up in the first place. If you're not going to give him credit, then pay him for the extra time or something. I dunno, it seems unfair, and doesn't pass the smell test for me. It essentially extends his sentence 30 months beyond what it was without any authority to do so.

Subscribe in a reader

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