Can you smell what the Constitution is cooking???

Oh how the dirty may fall… Do you hear the sound of the Stevens County “House of Cards” falling?

So for those of you who have been following this case:

Deskins V Stevens County Wa.

First they convicted her of a false trumped up charges, stole every single thing she worked for over 40 years for including her personal pets & highly prized farm animals, then her conviction was overturned, & now she is appealing the rest of her charges. Well the state appeals court agreed to hear HER case & denied to hear Stevens County’s case. So it seems the last 2 charges will be dismissed & then she is going to sue the living sh*t out of them, I will so enjoy watching them squirm. She has lost almost everything, but unfortunately people I know & love are withholding her animals & property from her under Mr Rasmussen & Detective Glover’s orders, she was denied medical care in jail & had to have open heart surgery within a week after she was released, she is now fighting a foreclosure, all of her cars are gone, her career is ruined, but she will now be vindicated!!! The court was so unimpressed with the state’s motion that it went as far as to let them know that they would not research the case & make it for them, it also recognized something very important in agreeing to hear the case, the animal seizure law is unconstitutional in it’s form… I wish I could be a fly on the wall up at the Stevens County Prosecutors office right now.

Here was the decision

STATE OF WASHINGTON, COMMISSIONER’S RULING NO. 29532-0-111

PAMELA D. DESKINS,
Petitioner
V
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.

Having considered the State of Washington’s motion for discretionary review and Ms. Deskins’ cross-motion for discretionary review of a Stevens County Superior Court order affirming in part and reversing in part Ms. Deskins’ district court conviction, Ms. Deskins’ response to the State’s motion, the record, file, and oral argument of counsel, and being of the opinion with regard to the State’s motion that discretionary review is not warranted in light of In re Personal Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 326, 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (a new rule of criminal procedure applies retroactively to all cases pending and not yet final), Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn App. 533, 538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998) and In fe Estate of Lint, 135 Wn.2d 518, 532, 957 P.2d 755 (1998) (judicial consideration will not be given when only passing treatment is given to an issue or it is lacking in reasoned argument; the appellate court will not comb the record in order to construct arguments for counsel); and being of the opinion with regard to Ms. Deskins’ motion that discretionary review is warranted in light of State v. Bobenhouse, 143 Wn. App. 315, 325, 177 P.3d 209 (2008), aff’d, 166 Wn.2d 881, 892 , n. 4, 214 P.3d 907 (2009) (a unanimity error amounts to a manifest constitutional error and therefore may be raised for the first time on appeal), State v. Simonson, 91 Wn. App. 8724, 883, 960 P.2d 955 (1998) (a unanimity instruction is required, whether requested or not, when a jury could find from the evidence that the defendant committed a single charged offense on two or more distinct occasions”), along with State v. Coleman, 159 Wn.2d 509, 512, 150 P.3d 1126 (2007), State v. Petrich 101 Wn.2d 566,569,683 P.2d 173 (1984); State v. Bray, 52 Wn. App. 30,34, 756 P.2d 1332 (1988) (when information charges one of several alternative means, it is error to instruct the jury on the uncharged alternatives); State v. Paulson, 131 Wn. App. 579, 588, 128 P.3d 133 (2006) (a court may only impose a sentence authorized by statute and if the court exceeds its sentencing authority, it’s actions are void); RCW 16.52.200(3) (forfeiture of only “animals held by law enforcement or animal care and control authorities” and “the owner shall be prohibited from owning or caring for any similar animals”); RCW 16.52.165 (limits the fine for conviction to $150); and State v. Besio, 80 Wn. App. 426, 431, 907 P.2d 1220 (1995) (“the SRA scheme applies solely to felony convictions”); now, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED, the State of Washington’s motion for discretionary review is denied; Ms. Deskins’ motion for discretionary review is granted.
July 8, 2011.

wordpress visitor
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s