Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

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: Division II

State v. Jones

Cliff Jones entered a guilty plea to first degree child molestation. He was sentenced to 130 months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody. The Court previously granted his PRP, remanding the case back to trial court for sentencing where he then was sentenced to 51 months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody. Upon resentencing, the trial court applied the 81 months the defendant spent incarcerated towards his 51 month sentence but not towards the 36 months of community custody. Jones argues on appeal that the trial court was statutorily required to apply the credited time to not only the incarceration but also the community custody and by not doing so the trial court violated his right to be free from double jeopardy.

Jones argued that former RCW 9.94A.120(16), which states in part, “the sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all confinement time served before the sentencing if the confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced” should have applied to both his incarceration and community custody time.  The State argued that former RCW 9.94A.170(3), which states that “any period of supervision shall be tolled during any period of time the offender is in confinement for any reason,” is controlling contrary to the Court of Appeals Division Three’s recent decision in In re Knippling, 144 Wn. App. 639, 183 P.3d 365 (2008),  The State also argues that Jones’s community custody term was tolled while he was incarcerated as opposed to the holding in Knippling which concludes that an offender’s community custody term may begin before the offender is released into the community. 

The Court declines to follow the majority in Knippling, arguing that allowing an offender’s community custody term to begin  before the offender is in the community conflicts with the definition of ‘in the community.’  (Hence the word community… seems pretty simple right?) The Court goes further suggesting that Knippling is inconsistent with our Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Dalluge, 162 Wn.2d 814, 177 P.3d 675 (2008).   Therefore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in not applying Jones's 81 months of previous confinement time to his community custody sentence.

The Court touches only briefly on Jones’s double jeopardy claim.  It holds that because it is the legislatures intent that his community custody not begin until he is in the community no violation of double jeopardy existed. 

Subscribe in a reader