Ronda Larson Kramer

Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeals' rejection of Bruch's challenge.

Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's summary dismissal, finding that the Department of Corrections (DOC) was authorized to deny inmate's early release based on his failure to obtain approved release address.

Department of Corrections' post-sentence petition granted. Because only DOC has authority to furlough inmates, the trial court's order granting prisoner a furlough is reversed.

Department of Corrections' petition granted. Remanded to the superior court with instructions to provide offender credit toward the post-revocation DOSA prison term for community custody served prior to revocation.

Court of Appeals granted the Department of Corrections' petition and remanded to the superior court to remove unauthorized credits for time served that the court had awarded upon revocation of the offender's DOSA sentence.

Department of Corrections' petition granted. Court of Appeals vacated the order modifying the sentence.

Dep't of Corrections' motion to modify commissioner's ruling on costs granted. Court of Appeals held that DOC was entitled to $200 statutory attorney fee as prevailing party under RCW 10.73.090.

Offender's petition denied. Court held that Dep't of Corrections had authority to impose sex offender conditions on offender that it was supervising for a non-sex offense, because by statute, DOC conditions need not be crime-related.

Denial of offender's petition aff'd. Court held that statute was not ex post facto because triggering event was offender's community custody violation, not offender's underlying offense. Therefore, Dep't of Corrections did not apply statute retroactively.

Inmate's petition denied. Supreme Court held that prisoner had no liberty interest protected by due process in earning early release credits at a 50 percent rate while in prison.

Inmate's petition dismissed. Court of Appeals held that Dep't of Corrections gave petitioner the maximum amount of early release time credit to which inmate was entitled.

Denial of inmate's habeas petition affirmed. Ninth Circuit held that (1) phone conversation initiated by defendant was not a custodial interrogation under Miranda; (2) suppression of phone conversation was not required despite prior Miranda violation.

Dep't of Corrections' petition granted; remanded for resentencing. Supreme Court held that list of crimes against persons in statute authorizing supervision was exhaustive, thus trial court could not impose supervision for a crime not on that list.

Dep't of Corrections' petition granted; remanded for resentencing. Court of Appeals held that residential burglary does not qualify as crime against persons in statute authorizing supervision. Thus, trial court wrongly imposed sentence of supervsion.

Dep't of Corrections petition granted; remanded for resentencing. Court of Appeals held that under statute authorizing supervision, trial court wrongly imposed supervision on offense not listed in statute.

Dismissal of habeas petition affirmed. Ninth Circuit held that inmate did not exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas review. Thus his claims were procedurally barred in federal court.

Inmate's petition denied. Court of Appeals held that Dep't of Corrections was not estopped from denying eligibility to inmate for enhanced early release program.

Summary dismissal of action affirmed in favor of defendants.