WA Legal Roundup – WA Supreme Court: No specific findings competency for waiver needed for pro-se; County jails need to provide good-time credit; failure to define aggravators not a manifest constitutional error; Statutory language trumps on lien

by

Pers. Restraint of Rhome

In this original personal restraint petition, Demar Rhome argues 

that the state and federal constitutions require independent findings of fact that a 

defendant is competent to waive counsel and represent himself at trial.  He also 

argues that the colloquy conducted by the trial court here was inadequate to secure a 

valid waiver of counsel.  We disagree and dismiss his personal restraint petition.

Pers. Restraint of Talley

We hold that the statutory issue is properly before us.  We also hold 

that former RCW 9.92.151 requires a county jail to provide opportunities for 

a presentence inmate to earn good-time credit.  We do not reach Talley's 

constitutional issue.  Because the Skamania County Jail policy conflicts with 

former RCW 9.92.151, Talley should receive earned early-release credit at 

the statutory maximum rate of 15 percent.

State v. Gordon

John Gordon and Charles Bukovsky were each charged 

with second-degree murder in the beating death of Brian Lewis.  The State also 

sought two aggravating sentencing factors: deliberate cruelty and particular 

vulnerability of the victim.  The jury was instructed to determine whether the  

State v. Gordon (John Caldwell); State v. Bukovsky (Charles Andrew), 84240-0

aggravators were present, but the instructions did not define "deliberate cruelty" or 

"particular vulnerability."    The defendants did not object to the instructions on that 

basis.  The jury found the defendants guilty and also found the aggravators applied.  

The trial court imposed exceptional sentences.  We must decide whether the failure 

to provide detailed instructions defining the meaning of "deliberate cruelty" or 

"particular vulnerability" is a manifest error of constitutional magnitude that may be 

addressed for the first time on appeal.  We hold that it is not and therefore reverse 

the Court of Appeals.

Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc.

RCW 60.04.091(2) requires mechanics' liens to be 

"acknowledged pursuant to chapter 64.08 RCW"  --  that is, an authorized person 

must certify in writing that the signor executed the lien freely and voluntarily.  RCW 

64.08.050.  RCW 60.04.091(2) also includes a sample claim of lien that the statute

states "shall be sufficient" but that does not include language satisfying the

acknowledgment requirement.  Contractors Athletic Fields Inc. (AFI) and Hos Bros. 

Construction Inc. each filed claims of lien that used the sample form and did not 

contain certificates of acknowledgment.  In each case, the lower court concluded the 

lien was invalid.  We disagree and hold that a claim of lien in the sample form is 

valid despite the absence of a proper acknowledgment.

 

 

In other news, have you checked out the new blog? The Nursing Home Neglect Report covers issues of elder abuse and neglect and elder care. You can find it at http://www.nursinghomeneglectreport.com




Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 476 other followers

%d bloggers like this: