Represented Wife On Appeal Of A Divorce Action. Court Of Appeals Concluded Trial Court Erred In Failing To Ascertain Whether The Stock Options Were Granted To Compensate Appellant For Past, Present, Or Future Employment Services. Case Remanded To Trial Court To Recharacterize The Stock Options And To Award Appellant Attorney Fees.

The Washington Supreme Court Reversed The Court Of Appeals And Remanded For The Petitioner To Have A New Trial. The Washington Supreme Court Held That The State’s Framing Of Petitioner’s Prosecution As Representative Of The War On Drugs Denied Petitioner A Fair Trial And Constitutes Reversible Error.

The Washington Supreme Court Held That Houston-Sconiers Constitutes A Significant And Material Change In The Law That Requires Retroactive Application. The Court Determined That Petitioner Established Actual And Substantial Prejudice And Remanded The Case Back To Superior Court For Resentencing. This Case Established A Time Bar Exception For Incarcerated Defendants Who Were Under 18 At The Time Of Their Alleged Crime To Petition For Resentencing If They Can Establish That Youth Was Not Considered At Sentencing.

Personal Restraint Petition Granted, 564 Month Sentence On Multiple Felonies Vacated, and Case Remanded For A Full Resentencing. Court of Appeals Concluded That Petitioner’s Trial Attorney Performed Deficiently Because She Did Not Make Legal Argument Or Provide A Factual Basis To Support Her Request For An Exceptional Sentence Downward Based on Petitioner’s Youth.

Personal Restraint Petition Granted. The Petitioner’s 394 Month Sentence For Murder In The Second Degree, Seven Counts Of Assault In the Second Degree And Deadly Weapons Enhancements Was Vacated. Court of Appeals Concluded The Trial Court Both Failed To Consider Petitioner’s Youthfulness And Mistakenly Believed That It Lacked Discretion To Run His Deadly Weapon Enhancements Concurrently. The Court Remanded For Resentencing.

Court Of Appeals Concluded Houston-Sconiers Expressly Limited Its Holding To Juvenile Defendants, And Petitioner Was Not A Juvenile When He Allegedly Committed His Offense. Therefore, That Case Is Not Material To Petitioner’s Sentence And RCW 10.73.100(6) Is Inapplicable. The Firm Is Filing a Motion For Discretionary Review With The Washington Supreme Court And Moving To Have The Time Bar Exception Extend To Defendants Older Than 18, Which Would Create New Law in Washington State If Granted.

First Degree Murder Conviction Reversed And Remanded For Resentencing Based On Client’s Youth At The Time Of Alleged Crime.

Felony Convictions For Indecent Liberties And Voyeurism Reversed Based On An Evidentiary Error Made By The Trial Court. Case Remanded For A New Trial.

Second Degree Possession Of Stolen Property Conviction Reversed And Remanded With Instructions To Dismiss. The Washington Supreme Court Concluded There Was Insufficient Evidence To Sustain The Conviction For Possession Of An Access Device Because The Stolen Access Device In Question Was A Credit Card That Defendant Removed From The Trash In Another Person’s Home And The Card Was An Unactivated And Unsigned Card Received In A Mail Solicitation. The Court Concluded There Was No Evidence The Card In Question Could Be Used To Obtain Something Of Value.

Appeal Granted. Washington Court Of Appeals Concluded The Trial Court Did Have Discretion To Consider Appellant’s Request For A New Sentencing Hearing In Light Of His Youth At The Time Of The Alleged Offenses And Thus Abused Its Discretion In Not Considering His Request. The Court Remanded To The Trial Court To Consider Whether To Grant Appellant A New Sentencing Hearing.

Conviction for Controlled Substance Reversed Based On Recent Washington Supreme Court Case, State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) Making Possession Offenses Unconstitutional.

The Court Of Appeals Ordered Appellant To Be Resentenced. In Blake, The Supreme Court Held That Washington’s Strict Liability Drug Possession Statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), Violates State And Federal Due Process Clauses And Is Therefore Void. 197 Wn.2d at 195. A Conviction Based On An Unconstitutional Statute Cannot Be Considered In Calculating The Offender Score. See State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 187-88, 713 P.2d 719, 718 P.2d 796 (1986). Accordingly, Appellant Was Entitled To Be Resentenced Because His Offender Score Included Unconstitutional Convictions.

Court of Appeals Remanded Case Back To Trial Court For Resentencing Based On Recent Washington Supreme Court Case, State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) Making Possession Offenses Unconstitutional.

Successfully Defended Juvenile Defendant Against The State Of Washington’s Petition For Writ of Certiorari Filed In The US Supreme Court Seeking To Reverse Washington Supreme Court Opinion In Juvenile’s Favor. Juvenile Client Will Be Resentenced Based On The Trial Court Not Meaningfully Considering His Youth In Sentencing.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Protection Order. The Appellate Division Affirmed The Trial Court Decision.

Published Case That Reaffirmed The Standard For A Landlord’s Relief. The Washington Court of Appeals Concluded That A Trial Must Proceed If There Are Substantial Issues Of Material Fact.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Family Law Appeal Related To The Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, Final Parenting Plan, And Child Support Order. The Superior Court Orders Were Affirmed In Their Entirety.

Second-Degree Misdemeanor Vehicular Manslaughter Reversed. The Court of Appeal Concluded That the Defendant Did Not Enter a No Contest Plea Into the Record Prior to the Trial Court Issuing Its Decision to Find Him Guilty. The Record Must Affirmatively State That a Defendant’s Plea Is Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily Entered. In This Case, the Record States That While the Defendant Was Attempting to Enter His Plea of No Contest, His Counsel Interrupted the Proceedings to Assure the Trial Court That He Was a U.S. Citizen. A Trial Court Cannot Find a Defendant Guilty Based Upon a Plea of No Contest When the Defendant Never Actually Entered His or Her No Contest Plea Into the Record, Even When the Record Indicates the Defendant Had the Clear Intention of Entering Such a Plea Prior to the Trial Court Making Its Guilty Finding. Therefore, the Defendant’s Conviction Must Be Reversed.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against A Family Law Appeal. Court Of Appeal Concluded The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Relying On Appellant’s Verified Response To Fix The Parties’ Date Of Separation, Or By Setting The Amount Of Appellant’s Spousal Support At Zero Based On Findings That Appellant Failed To Testify Credibly About Her Current Earning Capacity and Income. The Respondent’s Judgment Was Affirmed.

First Degree Murder Conviction Conditionally Reversed. Court of Appeal Concluded That The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Denying Appellant’s Motion To Disclose Juror Information. Accordingly, The Court of Appeal Conditionally Reversed The Conviction And Sentence Pending Further Proceedings On The Issue.

Court of Appeal Remanded Involuntary Manslaughter Sentence For Resentencing In Light Of Assembly Bill No. 518. The Court Of Appeal Concluded At Resentencing, The Trial Court Could Apply Ameliorative Legislation Signed Into Law During The Pendency Of The Appeal, Including But Not Limited To Senate Bills Nos. 567 and 81.

Court of Appeal Reversed The Order Granting Respondents’ Anti-SLAPP Motion And Awarded Appellant Her Costs On Appeal.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of An Order To Surrender Weapons Related To The Anti-Harassment Order Issued Against Appellant. The District Court Order Was Affirmed In Its Entirety.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against An Appeal Of A Restraining Order Imposed Against Appellant. The Court Of Appeal Concluded That The Record Overwhelmingly Supported Granting Respondent’s Request For A Permanent Restraining Order.

Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Granted. Attempted Murder Conviction And Enhancements Transferred To The Orange County Superior Court, With Directions For The Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitation To Show Cause Why Petitioner Would Not Be Entitled To Relief In Light Of Senate Bill No. 620.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against An Appeal Of A Restraining Order Imposed Against Appellant. Court Concluded There Was Sufficient Evidence To Uphold The Restraining Order And Affirmed The Order On Appeal.

Order Denying A Protection Order Remanded To The Trial Court To Clarify The Basis Of Its Denial Of The Restraining Order Under RCW 10.14.080 (3), And To Consider With Adequate Findings The Applicability Of Respondent’s Laches Defense.

Order Denying A Protection Order Reversed As A Result Of The Trial Court Erroneously Excluding Appellant’s Evidence At Trial. The Case Was Remanded For A New Trial As A Result Of The Reversible Error.

Possessing A Firearm As A Felon, Felon In Possession Of Ammunition, And Assault With A Semi-Automatic Firearm Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether The Lower Court Should Exercise Its Discretion To Strike Or Impose An Enhancement Under Section 186.22, Subdivision (G), And To Correct The Abstract Of Judgment To Reflect That The Trial Court Imposed A Concurrent Sentence On Count 6.

Assault With A Firearm Case Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether To Strike Or Impose An Enhancement Under Section 12022.5. The Court Of Appeal Stated It Was Concerned By The Trial Court’s Inference That Appellant Lacked Remorse Based Solely On His Intention To Exercise His Right To Appeal. The Court Of Appeal Directed The Trial Court To Consider All The Circumstances Of Appellant’s Case During Resentencing And To Resentence Appellant Without Punishing Him For Exercising His Appellate Rights.

Represented Respondent And Successfully Defended Against Appeal Where Appellant Was Seeking Reversal Of The Attorneys’ Fees, Reversal Of Treble Damages, Reversal Of The Court’s Decision Declining To Offset The Judgment In Favor Of Respondent Against A Previous Judgment Against Respondent, And Arguing That The Lower Court Imposed An Improper Interest Rate. Respondent Prevailed On Every Argument On Appeal And The Judgment Was Affirmed.

Attempted Possession Of A Controlled Substance Conviction Reversed And Remanded. The Reviewing Court Ruled That The Trial Court Erred In Denying Appellant’s CrR 3.6 Motion To Suppress And Dismiss, Because The Initial Text Messages Leading To The Investigation And Arrest Of Appellant Were The Product Of Law Enforcement’s Unlawful Warrantless Search Of A Cellular Phone. The Reviewing Court Also Reversed The Conviction Because The Trial Court Erroneously Imposed A Discovery Sanction Against The Appellant That Prevented Appellant From Impeaching A Law Enforcement Officer With A Document At Trial.

Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Determine Whether To Strike Any Enhancements Imposed Under Sections 12022.53 Or 667, Subdivision (A)(1). The Trial Court Was Ordered To Reduce The Sentence Accordingly If Any Of The Enhancements Are Stricken.

Petition For Review Granted. Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Transferred To The Court Of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1, With Directions To Vacate Its Decision And Reconsider The Cause In Light Of Senate Bill No. 1393.

Murder And Attempted Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancement Which Was Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

Murder Conviction And Sentence Conditionally Reversed And Remanded To The Juvenile Court For A Juvenile Transfer Hearing To Determine Appellant’s Suitability Within The Juvenile Justice System. If Appellant Is Found Fit For The Juvenile Court System, He Will Be Resentenced As A Juvenile Instead Of An Adult.

Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancement Which Was Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

Assault In The Fourth Degree (DV) Conviction Reversed Due To Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Murder Conviction Remanded To Trial Court To Exercise Its Discretion, Newly Conferred By The Passage Of Senate Bill 620, To Strike Firearm Enhancements Which Were Previously Mandatory And Resentence Appellant.

Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Granted. Court Ordered That Petitioner Be Resentenced On All Five Felony Convictions. Pursuant To The Holding In People V. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, Petitioner Should Not Have Been Resentenced To Both Sentencing Enhancements Pursuant To Section 186.22 Subdivision (B)(1)(C) And Section 12022.5, Subdivision (A)(1), In Both Counts 2 And 3. Petitioner Resentenced On July 25, 2018.

Certificate Of Appealability Issued On Federal Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Permitting Appellant’s Case To Proceed To The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals.

Petition For Review Granted. Murder Conviction Transferred To The Court Of Appeal With Directions To Vacate Its Decision And Reconsider The Cause In Light Of S.B. 620.

Court’s Award Of Prejudgment Interest Vacated Due To The Court Giving No Reason For Departing From The Federal Interest Rate.

Murder Conviction Judgment Of Sentence Reversed And Remanded To Trial Court Where Defendant Was Resentenced To 25 Years To Life Instead Of The Original Life In Prison Without Possibility Of Parole Sentence Due To The Sentencing Court Not Originally Considering All Of The Factors Relevant To Juvenile Sentencing. Mr. Parker Handled The Resentencing Hearing On April 14, 2017.

Assault In The Fourth Degree (DV) Conviction Reversed Due To Prosecutorial Misconduct.

Reversal Of A Judgment Against The Client On A Civil Case Seeking Damages For Personal Injury With Directions To The Trial Court To Vacate The Order Granting The Motion For A Terminating Sanction Due To The Trial Court Abusing Its Discretion.

Felony Drug Possession With Intent To Manufacture Or Deliver Overturned Due To A Warrantless Search Of The Appellant’s Vehicle.

Second Degree Rape Conviction Overturned Due To The Court Improperly Joining Two Rape Cases.

A Condition In The Judgment And Sentence Required Correction And The Case Was Remanded For Resentencing.

Driving Under The Influence Conviction Overturned Due To The Jury’s Receipt Of The Police Report Referencing The Fact Of A Blood Draw When The Breath Test Had Been Suppressed. Mr. Parker Assisted In Drafting The Brief As The Law Clerk To Attorney Scott Robbins.

The Court Of Appeal Reversed The Trial Court Judgment Dismissing Appellant’s Discrimination And Retaliation Lawsuit In Violation Of The California Fair Employment And Housing Act. The Court Of Appeal Directed The Trial Court To Vacate Its Order Dismissing The Action With Prejudice And Enter A New Order Granting Appellant Leave To File An Amended Complaint And Move Forward With His Lawsuit Against The University. The Court Of Appeal Also Awarded Appellant His Costs On Appeal.

Habeas Corpus Relief Granted. Case Ordered returned To The Trial Court For Resentencing In Light Of Senate Bill 1393 and Senate Bill 136.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Judgment For Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Promissory Fraud, And Quiet Title. Judgment Affirmed With the Exception Of Promissory Fraud Claim.

Published Case Involving The Staying Of Enforcement Of Arrears In Connection With Child Support.

Represented Husband On Appeal Of A Divorce Action. Court Of Appeal Vacated The Judgment And Concluded That The Trial Court Erred And Reduced The Amount Of The Award Owed To Wife.

Order Granting A Protection Order Against Appellant Reversed As A Result Of Insufficient Evidence Demonstrating A Course Of Conduct. The District Court Decision Was Reversed And The Order For Protection Against Appellant Was Vacated.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of A Judgment Of Unlawful Detainer. The Appellate Division Affirmed The Trial Court Judgment.

Michigan Court Of Appeals Concluded That The Trial Court Improperly Inferred That Because Appellant Could Work At Some Level, She Could Work Full Time And Earn Minimum Wage. Trial Court Also Completely Ignored The Cost Of Childcare During Appellant’s Parenting Time. Given The Inadequacy Of The Trial Court’s Analysis, The Case Was Affirmed In Part And Remanded For Further Proceedings Consistent With The Opinion.

Successfully Defended Respondent Against Appellant’s Appeal Of An Anti-Harassment Order. The Superior Court Order Was Affirmed And Attorney’s Fees Were Awarded For Respondent.