73762-7 | Omnilex

Full text

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON uncz
—-cz
STATE OF WASHINGTON, 	)
DIVISION ONE
LJ -.
Respondent, 	)
No. 73762-7-1 IS c/j' r".r
v. 	) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 	sr
ZC """
MICHAEL MARKNSEN,
Appellant.
i 	FILED: 	December 19, 2016
Dwyer, J. — As the parties predicted, the Supreme Court's opinion in
State v. Case, No. 92293-4 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/922934.pdf, is dispositive ofthe claim of
error raised in this appeal. 	The Case decision mandates affirmance of the trial
court's judgment. We so order.
The sole remaining question regards costs on appeal. This question was
fully briefed by the parties (it was raised in the brief of appellant, addressed in the
brief of respondent, and discussed in appellant's reply brief) and we granted oral
argument on the issue. 	After full consideration of the question, "we now choose
to exercise our discretion and direct the clerk ofthe court not to award appellate
costs even though the State has substantially prevailed." 	In re Pers. Restraint of
Flippo, No. 92616-6 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016), at 8,
http://www.courts.wa.aov/opinions/pdf/926166.pdf.

No. 73762-7-1/2
Affirmed.
We corfcur:
i
^r/
Skii^a&^jy^

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

107

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

as
2 ayt

STATE OF WASHINGTON, oS
DIVISION ONE 3

Respondent, _

No. 73762-7-1 =

Vv. Ms

UNPUBLISHED OPINION § &,

MICHAEL MARKNSEN,

Appellant.
FILED: December 19, 2016

Se ee Nie Nee a ee ee ee ee eee eee”

Dwyer, J. — As the parties predicted, the Supreme Court's opinion in

State v. Case, No. 92293-4 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016),

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/922934.pdf, is dispositive of the claim of

error raised in this appeal. The Case decision mandates affirmance of the trial
court’s judgment. We so order.

The sole remaining question regards costs on appeal. This question was
fully briefed by the parties (it was raised in the brief of appellant, addressed in the
brief of respondent, and discussed in appellant's reply brief) and we granted oral
argument on the issue. After full consideration of the question, “we now choose
to exercise our discretion and direct the clerk of the court not to award appellate

costs even though the State has substantially prevailed.” In re Pers. Restraint of

Flippo, No. 92616-6 (Wash. Dec. 8, 2016), at 8,

htto://Awww.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/926166.pdf.

No. 73762-7-1/2

Affirmed.

We corcur:
7

TT

State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Marknsen, Appellant

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude