Attorney Ryan Boyd Robertson's Legal Cases

Appeals

R.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2015) Whatcom County Superior Court

Mar 20, 2015

OUTCOME: License revocation reversed

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent Law, and client appealed to Superior Court. The arresting officer's sworn report stated the client refused a breath test, but failed to describe t ... he factual basis for the refusal. The DOL hearing examiner revoked the client's license, but the Superior Court reversed. The conclusory statement that the client refused a breath test failed to meet the requirement that the State must prove the client failed to cooperate with the request for a breath test. Lacking this explanation, the hearing examiner's finding of a refusal was not supported by the evidence.

Appeals

State v. R.E. (2014) Pierce County Superior Court

Oct 17, 2014

OUTCOME: Trial court dismissal affirmed

Client's DUI charge was dismissed by trial judge on grounds the initial traffic stop was unlawful. State appealed. On appeal, the superior court agreed that the State failed to present sufficient evide ... nce to create reasonable suspicion that client's lane travel justified traffic stop and investigation for DUI.

Appeals

A.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2013) King County Superior Court

Nov 25, 2013

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law, and he appealed to the Superior Court. The arresting officer testified that he "believed" he told the client about his right to seek an indep ... endent breath or blood test before the client refused the State's test, but the officer was wasn't completely sure. The hearing examiner revoked the client's license, but the Superior Court reversed. The officer's testimony failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard, and the hearing examiner erred in relying on this testimony to revoke the client's license.

Appeals

Nielsen v. Dept. of Licensing, --- P.3d --- (Div. 1 2013)(Published)

Sep 30, 2013

OUTCOME: The Court held that the appeal waiver section of ignition interlock law violated due process rights of drivers.

In 2009 the Washington Legislature passed a law requiring drivers who sought an ignition interlock license following an implied consent license suspension to give up their right of appeal to obtain the ... license. The issue on appeal was whether this law violated State and Federal standards for due process.

Appeals

State v. R.W. (2013) (Div. 2, #44437-2-II)

Mar 28, 2013

OUTCOME: Case was remanded to trial court where court granted vacation of conviction.

Client was convicted of Eluding a Police Officer and DUI. After waiting the statutory wait period to vacate a felony offense, we filed a motion to vacate the felony conviction, but not the DUI, which c ... annot be vacated. The State objected and the judge denied the request. We filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals. After filing our appeal brief the prosecutor's office agreed that there was no legal basis to object to the client's motion to vacate. We agreed to dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court for entry of the vacate order.

Appeals

State v. L.P. (2012) King County Superior Court

Nov 30, 2012

OUTCOME: Trial court imposition of a deferred sentence following a DUI conviction was affirmed.

Client was convicted of DUI at trial and received a deferred sentence. The Client appealed a court ruling to admit breath test results, and the State cross-appealed on the trial court's imposition of t ... he deferred sentence. A King County Superior Court judge ruled that the sentencing statutes under Washington law were ambiguous and held that trial court judges in DUI cases have the discretion to sentence DUI offenders to a deferred sentence. A deferred sentence means that the defendant may ask the judge in the future to dismiss the DUI once he or she meets certain conditions. The trial court judge in this case did not commit legal error in giving our client a deferred sentence. Note: The Legislature in 2013 modified the deferred sentence statute to specifically prohibit deferred sentences in DUI cases. However, this change has no bearing on our client's sentence.

Appeals

E.P. v. Dept. of Licensing (2012) King County Superior Court

Oct 03, 2012

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law and she appealed to the Superior Court. After filing our appeal brief, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office agreed with our argument ... that the Department of Licensing hearing examiner erred in suspending our client’s license. The record showed the arresting officer clearly mis-informed the client that if she refused the breath test her license “could” be suspended for 90 days or a year. A correct reading of the law requires the officer to advise drivers that their license will be revoked for at least one year if they refuse.

Appeals

State v. Olson, 170 Wn. App. 1032 (Div. 1 2012)(un-published)

Sep 17, 2012

OUTCOME: Vehicular Assault conviction was affirmed.

Client was convicted of Vehicular Assault and appealed. On appeal we argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the results of a blood alcohol test. State law requires the prosecutor to prove that ... the chemicals used in a blood test vial are “sufficient in amount” to preserve the blood sample so the alcohol concentration of the blood does not change. We brought forward scientific studies which establish that the State failed to use enough chemicals to meet this standard. The Court disagreed and held the State’s evidence, which disregarded these studies, was sufficient proof that the State complied with applicable rules to admit the blood test irresspective of scientific standards. The Supreme Court declined to accept review. We have noted, however, in subsequent DUI cases that the State now uses a quantity of chemicals in blood test vials to meet current scientific standards.

Appeals

State v. S.F. (2012) King County Superior Court

Mar 28, 2012

OUTCOME: Trial court dismissal of DUI charge was affirmed.

Client's DUI charge was dismissed prior to trial on the grounds the traffic stop was illegal. The State appealed and argued that the trial judge mis-interpreted and mis-applied the appellate court deci ... sion in State v. Prado. Prado holds that momentarily crossing a lane line does not amount to a violation of law. A King County Superior Court judge affirmed the trial court dismissal. A traffic stop is not valid based on a trooper's observation of client's vehicle crossing a fog-line by half a tire-width for two seconds. This observation of driving, without more, did not create legal cause to seize and detain the client. The trial court judge did not commit legal error in dismissing a DUI charge based on this illegal traffic stop.

Appeals

State v. S.W. (2012) Island County Superior Court

Jan 13, 2012

OUTCOME: Conviction was reversed and case was remanded to trial court for re-sentencing.

Client was convicted at trial for violating several fish and widlife regulations and filed an appeal. An Island County Superior Court judge ruled that two convictions for unlawful hunting of wild birds ... must be dismissed for violation of the double jeopardy clause of the State Constitution. The client was convicted of these charges along with two counts of hunting while his privilege to hunt was suspended. These offenses shared almost identical statutory elements, and the violations were based on the same set of facts. The case was sent back to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

Ryan Boyd Robertson's Legal Cases (23)

R.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2015) Whatcom County Superior Court

State v. R.E. (2014) Pierce County Superior Court

A.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2013) King County Superior Court

Nielsen v. Dept. of Licensing, --- P.3d --- (Div. 1 2013)(Published)

State v. R.W. (2013) (Div. 2, #44437-2-II)

State v. L.P. (2012) King County Superior Court

E.P. v. Dept. of Licensing (2012) King County Superior Court

State v. Olson, 170 Wn. App. 1032 (Div. 1 2012)(un-published)

State v. S.F. (2012) King County Superior Court

State v. S.W. (2012) Island County Superior Court