Legal Opinion

State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 7, 1998No. 42929-9-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. BrightWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Martin v. TriolWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. BrandWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Miller v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re the Personal Restraint of BaileyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. LarranagaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  3. State v. LarranagaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  4. In Re BaileyWashington Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API