two part test in Washington

2024ANALYSIS Strickland, the seminal case for ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, requires a court to consider such claims with a two part analysis. 466 U.S. at 687 .

1999Arguelles, 921 P.2d at 441 n. 3. [2] Courts considering such claims under the ineffective assistance of counsel framework have used the two part test set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2016Jd. (quoting Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d at 105-06 ).

2005Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d at 105-06 .

2013See, e. .,State v. Cheatam, 150 Wn. d 626, 645, 81 P. d 830 (2003); g 2 3 State v. McPherson, 111 Wn.

2013See, e. .,g State v. Cheatam, 150 Wn. d 626, 645, 81 P. d 830 (2003); 2 3 State v. McPherson, 111 Wn.

2009First, the reviewing court "must ask what evidence the jury actually considered in reaching its verdict," analyzing the jury instructions and applying the "customary presumption that jurors follow instructions and . . . that they consider relevant evidence on a point in issue when they are told that they may do so." Yates, 500 U.S. at 404 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 .

2009First, the reviewing court “must ask what evidence the jury actually considered in reaching its verdict,” analyzing the jury instructions and applying the “customary presumption that jurors follow instructions and ... that they consider relevant evidence on a point in issue when they are told that they may do so.” Yates, 500 U.S. at 404 .

2005State v. Morley, 134 Wn.2d 588 , 952 P.2d 167 (1998).

2005State v. Morley, 134 Wash.2d 588 , 952 P.2d 167 (1998).

2005State v. Morley, 134 Wn.2d 588 , 952 P.2d 167 (1998).

2005State v. Morley, 134 Wash.2d 588 , 952 P.2d 167 (1998).

2005App. 34, 38-39 , 863 P.2d 560 (1993). ¶10 In determining whether foreign convictions are comparable to Washington strike offenses, we have devised a two part test for comparability.

2005State v. Villegas, 72 Wash.App. 34, 38-39 , 863 P.2d 560 (1993). ¶ 10 In determining whether foreign convictions are comparable to Washington strike offenses, we have devised a two part test for comparability.

2001Next, applying the two part test from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

2001Next, applying the two part test from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

2025Dist. 9 No. 58595-2-II No. 5, 150 Wn.2d at 802 ).

2024Under Dolan, the government’s condition on development must be roughly proportional to the effect of the proposed development. 512 U.S. at 391 .

2022State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409, 415 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007).

2022State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409, 415 , 158 P.3d 580 (2007).

2021Newman, 156 Wn.

2020App. 64, 71 , 214 P.3d 968 (2009); RCW 10.61.003. 2 RCW 10.61.010. 3 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978). -5- No. 78763-2-I/ 6 necessary element of the charged offense. 4 The second prong, called the factual prong, requires that the evidence “raise an inference that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the charged offense.”5 This court analyzes this question by viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 6 So, “if there is even the slightest evidence that the defendant may have comm

2020App. 64, 71 , 214 P.3d 968 (2009); RCW 10.61.003. 2 RCW 10.61.010. 3 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978). -5- No. 78763-2-I/ 6 necessary element of the charged offense. 4 The second prong, called the factual prong, requires that the evidence “raise an inference that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the charged offense.”5 This court analyzes this question by viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 6 So, “if there is even the slightest evidence that the defendant may have comm

2020Hill, 191 Wn.2d at 562 .

2020State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236, 243 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007).

2020Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 862 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001).

2020App. 638, 647 , 282 P.3d 1100 (2012). 12 Wixom v. Wixom, 190 Wn.

2020Generally, a court will not award attorney fees and costs of litigation unless authorized by contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity.10 We apply a two part test in reviewing orders involving attorney fees: (1) we review de novo whether there is a legal basis for awarding attorney fees and (2) we review a discretionary decision to award or deny fees and the reasonableness of any attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion.11 We review the trial court’s findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether the findings support the conclusions

2020Generally, a court will not award attorney fees and costs of litigation unless authorized by contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity.10 We apply a two part test in reviewing orders involving attorney fees: (1) we review de novo whether there is a legal basis for awarding attorney fees and (2) we review a discretionary decision to award or deny fees and the reasonableness of any attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion.11 We review the trial court’s findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether the findings support the conclusions

2020State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236, 243 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007).

2020Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 32-33 . 6 Ahquin further argues that the trial court’s error resulted in denying him his right to present a defense.

2020App. 64, 71 , 214 P.3d 968 (2009); RCW 10.61.003. 2 RCW 10.61.010. 3 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978). -5- No. 78763-2-I/ 6 necessary element of the charged offense. 4 The second prong, called the factual prong, requires that the evidence “raise an inference that only the lesser included/inferior degree offense was committed to the exclusion of the charged offense.”5 This court analyzes this question by viewing all the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. 6 So, “if there is even the slightest evidence that the defendant may have comm

2020Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 862 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001).

2020Although concluding that the Commission had standing under the standard two part test, the Supreme Court further noted that even if the Commission had not successfully established standing under that test, the substantial public importance of the issues the Commission raised “would militate in favor of finding standing.” WSHFC, 193 Wn.2d at 719 .

2020When supported by the record, a defendant has the statutory right to have the jury instructed on an attempt to commit the charged offense. 1 This allows the jury to decide whether to convict a defendant of the crime charged or for the lessor offense of an attempt to commit the crime charged. 2 Washington courts use the two part test described in State v. Workman to decide whether to grant a defendant entitlement to a jury instruction on attempt. 3 The first prong, called the legal prong, requires that each element of the lesser offense be a 1 State v. Wright, 152 Wn.

2020Generally, a court will not award attorney fees and costs of litigation unless authorized by contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity.10 We apply a two part test in reviewing orders involving attorney fees: (1) we review de novo whether there is a legal basis for awarding attorney fees and (2) we review a discretionary decision to award or deny fees and the reasonableness of any attorney fee award for an abuse of discretion.11 We review the trial court’s findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether the findings support the conclusions

2020State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-98 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019).

2020State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784, 797-98 , 453 P.3d 696 (2019).

2019If they can meet this two part test, “the date of priority of the right will ‘relate[] back’ to the time work was first performed to appropriate the water.”12 Fox, 193 Wn.