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 III

 

State v. Trujillo

Smackdown Moses Lake style!

wwe-smackdown-results

The police were called to the home of Mr. Trujillo as he was seen beating a woman in his front yard at 2:00 a.m.  When the police arrived they found a drunken Trujillo, an even drunker Ms. Steffler and personal effects scattered across the front lawn.  After questioning both parties, they decided to arrest Trujillo for Domestic Violence Assault 4.  Upon searching Trujillo the officers found a 1/2 ounce of cocaine in his pocket.  For personal use, I’m sure.

Trujillo was charged with DV4 and possession with intent to deliver.  At trial Trujillo agreed that there was probable cause for arrest, but there was insufficient evidence to convict on the charge of DV4.  The court agreed and dismissed the DV charge, but not the possession charge for which Trujillo was subsequently found guilty. 

Trujillo’s appeal is based on the constitutionality of his arrest and subsequent search, even though he did not challenge this at the trial level an in fact agreed there was probable cause.  He also claims ineffective assistance of counsel. 

So can Trujillo raise a constitutional search issue when he not only did not object, but acknowledged that the police had probable cause?  NO!  "A defendant waives the right to challenge the trial court's admission of evidence gained by an illegal search or seizure by failing to move to suppress the evidence at trial."  Insert NUMEROUS case citations. 

So can Trujillo challenge a warrantless search for the first time on appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel?  He can only if he can show from the record that the trial court would likely have granted a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of warrantless search.  In addition, Trujillo had to show that his lawyer's work was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the failures.

A defense lawyer performs deficiently when his or her representation falls below an "objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all of the circumstances.”  An appellant must show that "'there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

Citations removed.  Reviewing the record, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of probable cause to arrest Trujillo even though in the end there was not enough evidence to convict.  Thus even if Trujillo had challenged the arrest and search, he probably would have lost and thus his counsel did not act deficiently. 

HOW EFFICIENT! 

Subscribe in a reader