73762-7•State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Marknsen, Appellant
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Michael Marknsen, Appellant
73762-7Washctapp19 dic 2016
Testo completo
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 Respondent, ) No. 73762-7-1 IS c/j' r".r v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION sr ZC """ MICHAEL MARKNSEN, Appellant.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 Ms UNPUBLISHED OPINION § &, MICHAEL MARKNSEN, Appellant.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
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.