Zuanich Law Newsletter
Episode #53: The Parler Episode
January 13, 2021 

Over the past week, I’ve began an exciting new venture.  Sort of a quasi-newsletter / advice column on Parler.
Unlike this newsletter, it’s a little more subdued and balanced.  Topics include:
  • Dating advice
  • Best ties to wear in Court to win your motion
  • Producing your favorite meme 
Unfortunately, interest has waned—well, to be more specific, interest has plateaued.  I’m hoping to generate some more buzz, so if you could jump on like some of my articles, I would really appreciate it.  
State v. Miller
Court of Appeals Div. 2
January 12, 2021
Sleeping Judge
Reading un-published opinions is like reading those dirty, germ-infested magazines in the waiting area waiting for the doctor’s office to call you, so you can so sit in that little windowless enclosed room on butcher paper so you can wait some more.  
You’ll read anything to kill the time—and hopefully you find something equivalent to a sleeping judge opinion.
Facts:  Defendant said trial judge fell asleep during trial.  He didn’t.
Holding: Judge did not fall asleep, because he didn’t.  
OK, so maybe the opinion was longer.  Miller said “I seen with my own eyes you dozed off a couple times in my trial.” 
Court of Appeals rejected Miller’s argument, engaging in some pretty in-depth sophisticated analysis on sleeping: “…Some people close their eyes while listening.”  
My take:  Next time I serve as a pro tem judge, I will keep this opinion next to me.  If I’m closing my eyes, please don’t appeal or report me to the CJC.  I was probably just pondering my next Parler post.  
State v. Koryavykh
Court of Appeals Div. 2
January 12, 2021 
Another un-published opinion?  You got to be f#*&ing me?
Don’t blame me.  The Courts aren’t giving me much to work with recently.  But this one is good.  
Holding:  COA re-affirms that interest does not accrue on non-restitution LFO’s after June 7, 2018.  A short but important opinion.  
Also, interesting other holding.  Following conviction at trial of DWLS 3 and reckless driving, trial judge imposed “45 days in the Pierce County Jail … on each count,” suspending the rest for 2 years.  The actual written J+S differed, not in the jail time actually imposed but relating to the amount of time that was being suspended. 
No, COA said.  First off, trial judges do not have to make precise “oral pronouncement of sentence.”  It just has to be in writing, which is what happened here.  And because defendant signed the J+S, he knew what was up.  
My take:  Interesting opinion for pro tem judges and judges.  I always suspected that judges did not have to read the sentence verbatim, but I was always unclear to what extent the oral pronouncement had to include relevant details. 
About Us: Zuanich Law focuses on criminal and civil appeals, DOL appeals, and post-conviction relief.  Our civil practice focuses on personal injury, family law, breach of contract protection order hearings, property law, landlord-tenant law, and general civil litigation.  
Copyright © 2021 Zuanich Law PLLC, All rights reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp