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. Bickle

Bickle was convicted of manufacturing and possession of meth and manufacturing and possession of pot.  He appeals his resentence, arguing that the trial court erred in treating these crimes separately for sentencing purposes when they stemmed from the same criminal conduct.  The trial court specifically found that the four charges were not from the same criminal conduct. Bickle argues the charges were from the same criminal conduct because they occurred at the same time and place and that the objective intent was the same. The state argued that the objective intent was different because the charges were for two separate drugs and the manufacturing process for each differs. 

The appeals court agreed with the trial court in respect to the separate drugs.  The appeals court held that the manufacturing of marijuana and meth did not share the same objective criminal intent because they were separate substances and the process was substantially different.  

The appeals court disagreed with the trial court in respect to the same substance.  The appeals court found that manufacturing and possessing the same drug amounts to the same objective criminal intent.  The appeals court dismissed the state’s argument that the crimes were committed in different parts of Bickle’s house and occurred at different times.  They argued that in order to manufacture marijuana one uses marijuana seeds and the RCW’s amount possessing seeds to possessing marijuana.  Therefore, in order to make pot you must possess it and Bickle possessed it in order to make it.

The appeals court reversed for resentencing and held that the trial court abused its discretion when they calculated Bickle’s marijuana manufacturing and possession convictions separately at sentencing.

Subscribe in a reader