State v. Thompson
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Per curiam
Indigent offenders have a statutory right to counsel when they file an appeal “as a matter of right.” A party may appeal an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment as a matter of right. Because Priestley Thompson is indigent and his appeal is one that is allowed as a matter of right, we reverse the trial court’s order denying him his right to counsel at public expense.
FACTS
Thompson was convicted of residential burglary and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. The trial court imposed a standard range sentence and Thompson did not appeal. Ten months later, he moved, pursuant to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Martin v. TriolWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. BrandWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Miller v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re the Personal Restraint of BaileyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. LarranagaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- State v. LarranagaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
- In Re BaileyWashington Supreme Court · 2000