State v. Studd
Washington Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSanders, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority that the conviction of Daun Bennett must be affirmed because he has not shown his counsel was deficient and, thus, cannot prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. I also agree with the majority that the convictions of William Ameline and Vincent Fields should be reversed and remanded for retrial because the jury instructions used in their trials were clearly erroneous. However, I disagree with the majority’s dispositions as to Keith Studd, Lee Cook, and Raymond McLoyd. The majority affirms their convictions…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bousley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louise Han PEREZ; Joseph Eclavea Perez; John Velasco Cruz, Defendants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- State v. AlleryWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. OlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. TheroffWashington Supreme Court · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.