Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Washington Supreme Court hears argument over vacatur for defendant still in custody
Summary
In State v. Dustin Jean Abrams, the court considered whether a person who remains imprisoned on a separate conviction may seek vacatur of earlier convictions under the statute discussed as section 6 40 of the SRA; defense counsel urged remand for the trial court’s discretion, while the State said the waiting period reflects rehabilitation in the community and counsels against vacatur for those still in custody.
The Washington State Supreme Court on a traveling oral-argument session at Western Washington University heard opposing views on whether a person still imprisoned for another crime may move to vacate earlier convictions under the statute cited in argument as section 6 40 of the SRA.
Christopher Petrone, counsel for Dustin Abrams, told the court that the statute permits a person to file a motion to vacate once the statutory waiting period runs for the offense sought to be vacated and that the Court of Appeals erred by substituting its own discretion for the trial court’s. “The statute allows a person to move to vacate a conviction when the required amount of time has passed after they finish their sentence on that conviction, even if they remain in prison on other convictions,” Petrone said, urging the court to reverse the Court of Appeals and remand so the trial court can exercise its discretion.
Petrone acknowledged that a movant bears the burden of…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
