https://elindsaycalkins.com/articles daily 0.75 2021-05-07 https://elindsaycalkins.com/articles/sb6164 monthly 0.5 2021-05-07 https://elindsaycalkins.com/articles/tag/SB+6164 monthly 0.5 https://elindsaycalkins.com/home daily 1.0 2024-11-04 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1588701261427-KZ4MX6H2PXXVTF6OUEF6/Lindsay.png Seattle Criminal Appeals Lawyer - Post Conviction Representation in Washington State https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1622831335299-XX4JCAL9XENDP81YFF39/Division1AppealsHearing.jpg Seattle Criminal Appeals Lawyer - Post Conviction Representation in Washington State Lindsay Calkins provides you with knowledgeable legal counsel based on a track record of success. https://elindsaycalkins.com/contact-us daily 0.75 2024-08-31 https://elindsaycalkins.com/about daily 0.75 2025-07-17 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1619049358746-KEF277AYBT2NJPQ94LFF/psbj.jpg About Seattle Criminal Appeals Attorney - Big or Small. Results. Lindsay Calkins has worked for judges, in big law firms, as a public defender, and now, as the founding partner of her own firm. In each instance, she has delivered wins for her clients. Lindsay is admitted to practice in all Washington State courts, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Lindsay and her husband, Ryan Calkins, met in Honduras while doing disaster relief after a major hurricane. Personalized Approach Lindsay works with every client directly, bringing her understanding of Washington’s legal system to the facts in her client’s case. Her goal is her client’s success, and not a long, drawn out legal process that delays an outcome. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1588701261427-KZ4MX6H2PXXVTF6OUEF6/Lindsay.png About Seattle Criminal Appeals Attorney - Legal Background Lindsay graduated with honors from Princeton University and earned her law degree from The University of Chicago Law School, where she was a member of The University of Chicago Law Review. She clerked for the Honorable Betty B. Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For over a decade, she has practiced law in Washington state, helping clients reach their goals. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1619049026986-P0VCWPDRTVMMNW4V97AM/Calkins_SCT2012.jpg About Seattle Criminal Appeals Attorney - Experience at all levels of Washington State Courts Lindsay Calkins has represented clients at every level in Washington State, including arguments before the Washington State Supreme Court. https://elindsaycalkins.com/sb-6164-petitions-for-resentencing daily 0.75 2021-08-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1619627039768-W5Z0CCXMVEZDH7VKH3MR/unsplash-image-8ChiI0Jd7nw.jpg SB 6164 Petitions for Resentencing - Am I eligible for SB 6164 Relief? The Washington State Legislature has recently recognized that many of the lengthy and harsh sentences imposed upon incarcerated individuals no longer advance the interests of justice. Moreover, the legislature and the Governor have acknowledged that the sentencing practices used thirty years ago are not appropriate today. Thanks to this shared recognition, the legislature has enacted Senate Bill 6164, which took effect in June of 2020. The text of SB 6164 states that the purpose of sentencing is “to advance public safety through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.” To best serve this purpose when a sentence includes incarceration, Washington lawmakers have recognized that sentences need to stay proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and must provide uniformity with the sentences of individuals committing the same offense under similar circumstances. In passing SB 6164, the legislature has intended to provide the prosecutor and the court with another tool to ensure that the purpose of sentencing is achieved. SB 6164 gives incarcerated persons an opportunity to petition prosecutors to advocate for their resentencing. Then, if the prosecutor accepts an individual’s petition, SB 6164 authorizes prosecutors to further petition the court to resentence the individual if their sentence no longer advances the interests of justice. In deciding whether to grant a prosecutor’s motion for resentencing under SB 6164, the court may consider the following factors: · The incarcerated individual’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, including treatment, programming, and employment; · Whether the incarcerated individual’s risk for future violence is reduced based on their age, time served, or diminished physical condition; · Changed circumstances since the original sentence, including serious medical conditions; and · Additional reasons the original sentence no longer serves the interest of justice. If the court grants a prosecutor’s petition under SB 6164, the court will resentence an individual as if the individual had not previously been sentenced. The new sentence cannot be longer than the original sentence. There are no limits on the types of felony offenses available for resentencing through an SB 6164 petition. However, because this legislation only provides prosecutors with the legal authority to bring a petition for resentencing in the interest of justice, incarcerated individuals who seek resentencing through SB 6164 must be able to convince the prosecutor to petition for resentencing in the first place. They then must convince the court to grant their petition. Moreover, because the court will consider a number of different factors when deciding whether to resentence someone under SB 6164, an incarcerated individual seeking release through SB 6164 will need to compile several different documents. These include medical and disciplinary records; proof of participation in programming and treatment, if applicable; and character letters. Because the process of preparing one’s case for an SB 6164 petition is quite extensive, it is important to have the assistance of qualified legal counsel. An attorney will help increase an incarcerated individual’s chances of having a prosecutor meaningfully review their petition since an attorney has significant resources to make a timely filing and can craft the best possible arguments. Contact Lindsay Calkins today for assistance with drafting and filing a 6164 petition for resentencing. https://elindsaycalkins.com/blake-resentencing daily 0.75 2021-08-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1619627039768-W5Z0CCXMVEZDH7VKH3MR/unsplash-image-8ChiI0Jd7nw.jpg Blake Resentencing - Am I eligible for a reduced sentence through Blake? Individuals convicted and serving a sentence of simple possession of a controlled substance may be eligible to have their convictions vacated, amended, or dismissed thanks to the case State of Washington v. Blake and subsequent legislation. In February of 2021, the Washington Supreme Court declared Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute unconstitutional in State v. Blake. Prior to the court’s decision, RCW 69.50.4013 criminalized unintentional, unknowing possession of a controlled substance without a prescription—in other words, it was a felony to possess controlled substances, even if the person in possession had no knowledge of the possession. In the Blake decision, the court held that the law exceeded the state’s police power and violated the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Moreover, the Blake court found that punishing people for innocent conduct exceeds the legislature’s powers. Consequently, Blake struck down the state law criminalizing possession of controlled substances as unconstitutional, thereby making it no longer a crime to possess controlled substances either knowingly or unknowingly. As a result of Blake, the state legislature introduced three different bills in the 2021 legislative session. Two of the bills, Senate Bill 5468 and Senate Bill 5475, simply sought to amend the statute by inserting the word “knowingly” before the word “possess” to fix this issue that was central to Blake. Neither of those two bills progressed through the legislative session. The third bill, Senate Bill 5476, however, passed in May and becomes effective on July 25, 2021. This bill addressed by Blake by adding the word “knowingly” before “possess,” but it also lessens the punishment for possession of a controlled substance to a misdemeanor. Additionally, the bill focuses more on public health rather than on criminalizing drug possession by establishing greater treatment and recovery resources for individuals who possess controlled substances. Prosecutors may still exercise discretion in diverting or declining to file charges when they receive drug possession cases and are encouraged to divert such cases for treatment or other services as part of the public health aspect of the bill. The bill is set to expire on July 1, 2023, at which time the statute will revert to the language that existed when Blake was decided unless the legislature acts before then. Blake and the passage of SB 5476 will have significant repercussions for people convicted of drug possession. According to the Department of Corrections (DOC), nearly 100 individuals incarcerated and 7,000 individuals who have been sentenced to community supervision on a simple possession conviction will have their convictions invalidated. The DOC also estimated that nearly 2,600 incarcerated individuals and nearly 3,900 individuals serving community supervision will be resentenced. For incarcerated persons who are released or resentenced under Blake, the DOC will provide a transition to assist those individuals with reentering the community and will connect them with services to support their success. Moreover, while there is no specific process in place yet for reimbursement of court-ordered fines and fees, money was set aside in the state’s budget for legal financial obligation reimbursement and may mean that individuals who have already made payments towards their fines and fees will receive repayment due to Blake. If you or a loved one has a drug possession on your record, or if you were sentenced to another felony and your offender score for conviction was based off of a drug possession conviction, you may be eligible for resentencing or vacation due to Blake and SB 5476. Contact Lindsay Calkins to determine if the new law applies to you or an incarcerated loved one. https://elindsaycalkins.com/personal-restraint-petitions daily 0.75 2021-08-16 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1619627039768-W5Z0CCXMVEZDH7VKH3MR/unsplash-image-8ChiI0Jd7nw.jpg Personal Restraint Petitions - Am I (or my loved one) eligible for release through a Personal Restraint Petition in Washington State? All individuals convicted of a crime have the right to appeal their convictions, but they also have the ability to challenge their convictions through a Personal Restraint Petition, or PRP. A Personal Restraint Petition allows a convicted person to argue that their conviction or sentence is unlawful and allows them to submit new evidence in the process. A PRP is typically filed in the Court of Appeals, where the court will grant the petition if the convicted person shows they are under some form of “restraint” and the restraint is “unlawful.” The primary form of “restraint” for purposes of filing a PRP includes being in custody, but a petitioner may also be under a “restraint” if they have limited freedom, are subject to imminent confinement, or are under some other disability resulting from a judgment in a criminal case. A person’s restraint may be “unlawful” for any one or more of the following reasons: · The court lacked jurisdiction; · The conviction or sentence was obtained or imposed in violation of the Constitution or another law; · There was evidence that was not presented that should have been presented; · There has been a significant change in the law that applies retroactively; · The conditions of confinement violate the Constitution or other laws; or · If “other grounds” exist to challenge the conviction. A Personal Restraint Petition differs from a direct appeal in that a PRP is broader and can apply to any type of official restraint such as involuntary confinement to a mental institution or treatment facility. Additionally, a Personal Restraint Petition allows one to submit new evidence that was not presented at trial or during appeal. A common claim made in a PRP is inefficient assistance of counsel, where a convicted individual may claim that their defense attorney failed to offer the court all of the evidence in the individual’s favor. Evidence of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim cannot otherwise be raised on appeal since it was not in the record from the trial court, so a PRP is an accessible avenue for incarcerated individuals to present the evidence that their lawyer should have used in trial. Another possible claim for the basis of a Personal Restraint Petition is that there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some limitations to filing a Personal Restraint Petition. First, the appellate court will only grant relief through a Personal Restraint Petition if other remedies which may be available to the petitioner are inadequate under the circumstances. Second, under RCW 10.73.090, a PRP must be filed within one year of the date that the conviction becomes final on direct review. However, there are some exceptions to this time requirement per RCW 10.73.100 that allow one to file a PRP after a year, including newly discovered evidence, a finding that the statute of conviction was unconstitutional, a finding that the conviction violates double jeopardy, insufficient evidence to support the conviction, or a significant change in the law that applies retroactively. No more than one petition for relief on behalf of the same petitioner will be entertained by the court unless good cause is shown. For some, a successful PRP will mean release from confinement for the imprisoned person. More often, a successful Personal Restraint Petition will mean the incarcerated person gets a new trial. If you or a loved one is currently incarcerated or under another form of restraint following a conviction, a PRP can be filed to challenge the unlawful imprisonment. Because there is a one-year deadline to file a PRP from the date the conviction is finalized and because preparing a PRP can take several months, it is important to start on a Personal Restraint Petition sooner rather than later. Contact Lindsay Calkins today for assistance with preparing a filing a Personal Restraint Petition. https://elindsaycalkins.com/iplitigation daily 0.75 2021-10-12 https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5eaf37ca9a1da500a833877c/1634056538710-8NYGLPA8746JO0C3WQ90/unsplash-image-OqtafYT5kTw.jpg Intellectual Property Commercial Litigation - Intellectual Property The Top 5 IP Issues to Consider Before Starting a Software Company Those interested in forming a startup software company will have to confront several significant legal issues to achieve success. Notably, entrepreneurs looking to start a software company should be prepared to address some of the following questions: Which business structure will you follow? The business model a startup company chooses to follow will have important legal implications. These implications include how the business is taxed, the ways the business can raise capital, and the personal liability of those in control of the business. A few of the most common business structures are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations. Startup software companies that choose to follow a sole proprietorship model will be unincorporated businesses with an individual as a sole owner who is personally responsible for all business obligations and who receive all ownership profits. Software companies that follow a partnership model include a relationship between two or more individuals, corporations, or other entities. The rights and obligations of the different partners will usually be set out in a formal partnership agreement. Finally, startup software companies that choose to follow a corporation model will have separate legal personalities from their shareholders and will have the ability to hold property, carry on business, and enter into contractual relationships. From where will the investment capital come? This question is particularly important for individuals interested in forming a startup software companies because one’s investors should not only have the assets needed to start the company but should also have some experience or expertise in the technology industry. This knowledge will be invaluable to avoid potential pitfalls that the new startup software company might encounter. How will you protect the IP of your software? It is vital to protect your intellectual property to compete effectively in the software development space. Some ways to protect IP held within software include the use of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. Patents can protect novel functions of the software itself and can provide the startup software company with the exclusive rights of a process, design, or invention. A software company can copyright source code to make sure that the code is protected. Trade secrets can protect ideas and practices vital to the development process of software. The effective use of these IP protection types is important for any startup software company. Will you out-license your software? If your startup software company is considering out-licensing your software by allowing other companies to use your software via a licensing agreement, it is important that you structure in protections to ensure that you retain ownership and control of your license. Generally, licenses should be thought out carefully regarding the context in which the licensed software will be used. Will your startup software company use independent contractors or employees? Determining whether your company will use independent contractors or employees is crucial for ensuring that your startup and its employees understand the terms and conditions of employment. Moreover, defining the terms of employment can minimize the risk for future uncertainties and disputes. If you enlist other people’s help to run your software company, be sure not to treat them as employees unless you want to be liable for their actions and plan to provide them with benefits. Additionally, it is important that, regardless of the employment type, intellectual property rights are clearly defined and stipulate that your startup software company will own the rights to all intellectual property created by an employee or independent contractor. By Carsen Nies, Seattle University School of Law The intersection of online privacy and the fourth amendment. As the use of various technologies increase and as individuals continue to expand their online presence, so too must the Supreme Court update its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to address the ever-growing concern of online privacy. Online or internet privacy refers to how much of one’s personal, browsing, financial, or other information remains private while online. Risks to one’s online privacy can range from phishing scams to malware, and issues with website security can result in identity theft or the hacking of one’s bank account. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution has served as the main protection against violations of personal privacy. It states the following: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. From the Fourth Amendment came the Supreme Court’s codification of the “third-party doctrine,” which stands for the principle that individuals have no legitimate expectation of privacy in information that they voluntarily share with third parties, regardless of whether they wanted the government to have access to the information. Thus, while the government would need a warrant to obtain an individual’s personal papers from their home, the third party doctrine removes that protection when law enforcement wants to obtain the same papers from a third party with whom the papers have been shared. The third party doctrine is made all the more complicated by the growing use of technology. In today’s digital age, many people keep their private information and data not on their persons or in a physical form, but rather online. As a result, one’s privacy is not guaranteed in the same way that it was before the internet existed, as advanced technology permits others to track digital information from a distance and as smart devices share users’ information with third parties. Therefore, it is necessary that the Supreme Court set a consistent interpretation of the Fourth Amendment when it comes to one’s online privacy. The Supreme Court last tackled this issue of online privacy in a 2018 decision called Carpenter v. United States. The Carpenter majority held that a warrant is required for police to access cell-site location information (CSLI), and it declined to extend the third-party doctrine to the data collected by cellphones. However, the case was limited to only applying to CSLI, which is produced when a phone user sends or receives data, such as phone calls or text messages, that are then transmitted to the closest cellular tower through radio waves. Precise records including the date and time of transmitted data and the approximate location of where the call began and ended are produced as a result. Because Carpenter only addressed privacy with regard to CSLI, it left open the question of how the Fourth Amendment and the third party doctrine apply to other technologies and methods of data collection besides data collected by cellphones. Thus, as smart devices continue to expand and develop beyond the simple cellphone that the Supreme Court addressed in Carpenter, it is imperative that Carpenter be read broadly or that the Court re-examine the application of the Fourth Amendment and the third party doctrine to all forms of technology and online privacy. The Supreme Court must recognize that the Fourth Amendment can play an important role in preventing government intrusion into one’s online privacy. By Carsen Nies, Seattle University School of Law