Synopsis: Respondent argues that he has a right to release to community custody under the terms of the early release statute, RCW 9.94A.728. Petitioner Department of Corrections argues that respondent’s plan was properly denied under the statute as it presented a risk to community safety.
Synopsis: Did a police officer properly cite a motorcyclist for reckless driving outside his department’s jurisdiction and then provide opinion testimony during the man’s trial?
Facts: Mark Vanderveen was disbarred following a hearing by the Washington State Bar Association’s disciplinary board, which found that Vanderveen had violated Washington Rules of Professional Conduct §8.4(b) and (c) by willfully failing to report income to the Internal Revenue Service. Vanderveen appealed the disciplinary board’s decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that disbarment was a disproportionate sanction and that mitigating factors had not been properly considered by the board.
Question(s): Was disbarment an appropriate sanction in light of the severity of the misconduct involved and in light of the presence of mitigating factors?
Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for the Court declined to overturn the disciplinary board’s recommendation of disbarment, holding that disbarment was appropriate due to the seriousness of the felony committed by Vanderveen and the lack of significant mitigating factors. In particular, the Court ruled that the sanction was not disproportionate to Vanderveen’s misconduct and that Vanderveen had failed to present substantial evidence of his good character or reputation, that his willingness to plead guilty to the criminal charges stemming from his misconduct did not qualify as a mitigating factor, and that the time he served in prison as a result of his tax evasion did not constitute the mitigating factor of “other penalties and sanctions” recognized by the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.
Synopsis: May a defendant collaterally challenge a conviction more than one year after the judgment becomes final when the defendant’s maximum possible sentence was misstated on the judgment and sentence form?
