Category Archives: Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals

1. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Cochrane (January 2011) – Notice of Felony

   Jan 4, 2012 —

   A foundational issue of fairness that triggers constitutional protections is notice.  When the government fails to notify a person why they intend to take their liberty most people regardless of their political orientation are offended.  Here the state failed to put Mr. Cochrane on notice of the charge of Felony DUI by omitting language from … [More]

2. Vehicular Assault DUI With Extreme Injuries Qualifies for Exceptional Sentence; 2011 Washington DUI Caselaw Update

   Dec 2, 2011 —

   For lawyers, State v. Pappas is helpful and clears the fog that was Washington’s definitions of injury levels.   Pappas answers the question of when a sentencing court may impose a sentence beyond that proscribed by the very rigid Sentencing Guidelines.  The discussion in Pappas clarifies how to measure an injury in a DUI vehicular … [More]

3. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Harvey (October 2011)

   Oct 31, 2011 —

   Happy Halloween.  Today we have some not so good soup from Division I of the Court of Appeals. This unpublished vehicular homicide case holds no authority and may not be cited by attorneys but it does help us understand what interpretation the Court of Appeals will use when confronted by issues that are brewing in … [More]

4. Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. Johnson (April 2011)

   Oct 19, 2011 —

   This unpublished felony DUI case presents some appellate court language on the admissibility of blood evidence of Clonazepam and Oxycodone (no alcohol).  Mr. Johnson argued numerous points but the appellate court ruled that because a toxicologist testified on the topic that the State met its burden.  My summary, we trust the Washington State Toxicology Lab … [More]

5. 2011 Washington DUI Caselaw Summary – State v. O’Grady (August 2011)

   Oct 14, 2011 —

   Mr. Jason O’Grady was convicted of  felony driving under the influence (DUI).  He argued that the information charging him with felony DUI was constitutionally deficient because it did not allege the essential element that he had four prior DUI convictions “within ten years.” He also claimed insufficient evidence supported the felony DUI conviction.  Division I … [More]