In re the Personal Restraint of Flint
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, C.J.
¶1 Personal restraint petitioner Eric Flint maintains that his return to total confinement pur*542suant to RCW 9.94A.737(2)1 as a result of repeated violations of conditions of community custody violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. He filed his personal restraint in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition as frivolous, and we granted discretionary review. We conclude that application of the statute to Mr. Flint did not create an ex post facto problem and accordingly affirm the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Mr. Flint’s petition, however, on…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. JeffersonWashington Supreme Court · 2018
- State of Washington v. Michael Duke CoombesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- In re the Estate of HavilandWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- Myles v. Clark CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- State v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.