Legal Opinion

In Re the Personal Restraint of Metcalf

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 31, 1998No. 38546-1-IPublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEllington, J.

When inmates in Washington state prisons receive money, certain statutes require the Department of Corrections to make deductions for costs of incarceration, the crime victim’s compensation fund, and a savings account. These provisions were not in place when Tommy H. Metcalf was imprisoned in 1990, and he filed this personal restraint petition challenging the provisions on numerous federal and state constitutional grounds, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. Metcalfs federal challenges were previously rejected in a federal class action. We elect to reach the merits of the federal claims, but…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Paul A. Wright, on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. Chase RivelandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. Amunrud v. Board of AppealsWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. ShultzWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. ShultzWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Andersen v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2006

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API