Ineffective
Division I
Involuntary Treatment Act – Mental illness episodes that occur over a couple of days can be sufficient to support involuntary commitment without any other prior history of mental illness episodes or commitment. In the Matter of the Detention of H.T., No. 87418-7-I (May, 4, 2026)*
*Editor’s note: Division I withdrew its May 4, 2026 opinion in this case and substituted it with this new opinion: In the matter of the detention of H.T., No. 87418-7-I (Jun. 6, 2026)
Division III
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – A defendant, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, must show both (1) deficient performance falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) prejudice – a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the deficiency. Here, defense counsel was deficient by not objecting to prejudicial booking photos and unauthenticated surveillance footage coming in. But there was no prejudice because there was a reasonable probability that the defendant would still have been found guilty if the booking photos and unauthenticated surveillance footage had not come in. Thus, defense counsel was not ineffective. State v. Perry, No. 40122-7-III (Mat 5, 2026, Unpublished)
Conflict of Interest – A part time superior court commissioner who represents a criminal defendant in the same court where he/she is a commissioner does not create a concurrent conflict of interest under RPC 1.7(a)(1) because commissioners do not represent a client in their non-advocate role. Nor did the commissioner’s dual role violate the appearance of fairness doctrine (at least not as to the defendant). State v. West, No. 40242-8-III (May 7, 2026, Unpublished)
Editor’s note: The court did not reach the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) because the CJC was not properly raised. But see Ethics Advisory Opinions: 09-02, (Whether a part-time commissioner may appear as a lawyer in a case in the same court in which he/she serves as a part-time commissioner, without violating the CJC, depends on factors to be reviewed case-by-case), and 26-01 (Defense attorneys should not serve as pro tem judges in criminal cases in district courts in the same county where the defense attorney routinely practices in the superior court because that would undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary)