Attorney Ryan Boyd Robertson's Legal Cases

Appeals

State v. P.L. (2011) Skamania County Superior Court

Jul 25, 2011

OUTCOME: Conviction for DUI was reversed and case was remanded for a new trial

Client was convicted of DUI and appealed. At trial, the court erroneously admitted breath test results, but then agreed to strike the test results from evidence. Defense counsel failed to move for a mi ... strial. The Superior Court ruled the defense counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a mistrial. The improper admission of Breath test evidence was prejudicial to a defendant and the prejudice could not be cured by a judge telling a jury to disregard the evidence. The Court found that our client's trial attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to ask the court to grant a mistrial so the defendant could receive a fair trial without the jury knowing the BAC result.

Appeals

State v. J. H. (2010 Thurston County Superior Court

Sep 17, 2010

OUTCOME: Conviction for violating no contact order was affirmed

Client was convicted of violating a no contact order and appealed. The State alleged the client violated the order in Washington State, while he lived in another state, by making a phone call. To prove ... the validity of the order the State had to prove the client's knowledge of the existence of the order. After filing our appeal brief the prosecutor's office conceded that the trial court violated the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses where it allowed the State to admit into evidence a “proof of service” form alleging the defendant was served notice of a no contact order without requiring testimony from the actual out-of-state police officer who allegedly served the order on the client. According to the U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. Melendez-Diaz, a sworn statement offered to prove an element of a crime is “testimony,” and the 6th Amendment to the Constitution affords a defendant the right to question state witnesses who offer evidence against him at trial. However, the Superior Court ultimately ruled that despite the constitutional violation there was sufficient evidence in the record to suport the conviction. The Court of Appeals, Division 2, declined to acccept review of the appeal.

Appeals

State v. Aslanyan, 157 Wn. App. 1017 (Div. 1 2010)(un-published)

Aug 02, 2010

OUTCOME: Trial conviction was affirmed.

Client was convicted of Assault first degree for using a firearm during a fight and appealed. The client raised a self defense claim, and after an intense and contested trial involving several uncooper ... ative witnesses, the prosecutor in closing argument made several gratuitous references to the witnesses' statements of anti-Semitism. On appeal, we alleged these statements were prejudicial to the defense as the jury was left with the impression the defendant and his witnesses endorsed anti-semitism. The prosecutor gave specific examples of anti-Semitic statements, which the defense argued on appeal was an attempt to sway the jury to feel sympathy for the victim, and to feel resentment towards the defendant. The Court affirmed the conviction finding the comments were not egregious, but more importantly it faulted the trial lawyer for failing to object to the argument during trial. The Supreme Court declined to accept review.

Appeals

N.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2010) King County Superior Court

Jul 08, 2010

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law and client filed an appeal to the Superior Court. The hearing examiner refused to consider the client's claim that her license should not be r ... evoked because her vehicle was parked "safely off the roadway," a recognized defense to Physical Control DUI cases. A King County Superior Court judge reversed the revocation and ruled that the Department's refusal to consider this defense violated the client's rights to due process under the State and Federal Constitutions. The “safely off roadway” defense is written into the physical control law and states a person may not be convicted of DUI if prior to being pursued by police the person moves his/her car safely off the roadway. Historically, the DOL has refused to consider this defense because the implied consent law does not specifically acknowledge the defense. This has meant intoxicated drivers who “do the right thing” and get off the road can still lose their license if arrested even though they cannot be convicted in court of any crime. The Superior Court ruled a person's right to a license is too great, and the consequences to the DOL too insignificant, to deny a person the right to argue the defense to prevent an unjust license revocation.

Appeals

M. F. v. Dept. of Licensing (2010) King County Superior Court

Jun 03, 2010

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law and he appealed to the Superior Court. The Department's hearing examiner improperly admitted evidence to be used to revoke the client's licens ... e without ever introducing it on the record or providing the client the opportunity to challenge the evidence. A King County Superior Court judge reversed the revocation finding the actions of the hearing examiner violated the client's due process rights.

Appeals

City of Seattle v. St. John, 166 Wn.2d 941 (2009)

Sep 10, 2009

OUTCOME: Court held law enforcement may obtain a search warrant to compel a blood alcohol test after suspect invoked right to refuse test requested under implied consent law.

Mr. St. john was involved in a single motorcycle accident and was arested for DUI. Afer being read an implied consent warning advising he had the right to refuse a blood test, he refused. State law als ... o stated that if he refused, no other tests would be taken. Police obtained a search warrant froim a judge to obtain a blood sample. The trial court suppressed the results of the blood test, fiinding the test violated the Implied Consent law. The issue on apeal was whether a provision of the Implied Consent law that permitted polie to obtain a search warrant for a blood test was in conflict with other Implied Consent provisions which prevented further testing after a refusal?

Appeals

State v. B.F. (2009) King County Superior Court

May 26, 2009

OUTCOME: Trial court dismissal of DUI charge was affirmed.

Client was charged with DUI. Prior to trial the charge was dimissed after the trial judge ruled that the initial police contact with the client was unlawful. The State filed an appeal. On appeal the St ... ate argued that the trooper's contact with the client was lawful as part of the community caretaking function and exception. The Superior Court judge held that there was no evidence of an emergency situation requiring the trooper to contact the client as his car was parked lawfully on the side of the road. The Court ruled that the trooper’s investigation of the client was unlawful where the client was parked safely in a transit zone off a highway, and showed no signs of being in danger or distress. The Court refused to rule that the trooper had authority under the “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement to investigate the client.

Appeals

S.A. v. Dept. of Licensing (2008) King County Superior Court

Dec 05, 2008

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under Implied Consent law. However, due to unique facts surrounding the arrest, the client never received any notice of the revocation. The arresting officer claimed in his ... report that he punched a hole in her license, but her license in fact was never punched. The client was eventually informed her license had been revoked, but never had any opportunity to request a hearing to challenge the revocation. We filed a motion for the a Superior Court judge to issue a Writ of Mandamus to require the Department to reverse the revocation. We argued that the license revocation was entered in violation of our client's right to due process as she was enttiled to notice and the oportunity to challenge the revocation. The Superior Court agreed.

Appeals

L.G. v. Dept. of Licensing (2007) King County Superior Court

Apr 16, 2007

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law, and the client filed an appeal. The issue on appeal was whether the arresting officer had authority to request a breath test, or was he requi ... red to request a blood test due to the client's injuries and inabiilty to blow into a breath test machine. The Superior Court judge reversed the revcation ruling that the officer violated the Implied Consent law by requesting the wrong type of test. The evidence was clear the client had been injured and substantial evidence showed he was incapable of providing a breath sample. The officer should have advised client of option of blood test under the circumstances.

Appeals

L.C. v. Dept. of Licensing (2007) King County Superior Court

Apr 02, 2007

OUTCOME: License revocation was reversed.

Client's license was revoked under the Implied Consent law and the client filed an appeal. The issue on appeal was whether sufficient evidence in the record established that the client refused a breath ... test even though the arresting officer admitted he did not read an Implied Consent warning. The hearing examiner ruled that the absence of a warning did not matter becasue the client was combative with the officer during the arrest process. After filing our appeal brief outlining the legal error in this case, the Attorney General’s office conceded error and agreed to reverse the license revocation.

Ryan Boyd Robertson's Legal Cases (23)

State v. P.L. (2011) Skamania County Superior Court

State v. J. H. (2010 Thurston County Superior Court

State v. Aslanyan, 157 Wn. App. 1017 (Div. 1 2010)(un-published)

N.S. v. Dept. of Licensing (2010) King County Superior Court

M. F. v. Dept. of Licensing (2010) King County Superior Court

City of Seattle v. St. John, 166 Wn.2d 941 (2009)

State v. B.F. (2009) King County Superior Court

S.A. v. Dept. of Licensing (2008) King County Superior Court

L.G. v. Dept. of Licensing (2007) King County Superior Court

L.C. v. Dept. of Licensing (2007) King County Superior Court