X

Legal Memorandum: Void Judgments in WA

Issue: In Washington, is a judgment void if a defendant was denied right to counsel?

Area of Law: Litigation & Procedure
Keywords: Void judgment; Denial of right to counsel
Jurisdiction: Washington
Cited Cases: 805 P.2d 813; 105 Wn.2d 175; 667 P.2d 630; 772 P.2d 1013; 112 Wn.2d 612; 488 U.S. 75; 611 P.2d 407; 93 Wn.2d 533; 86 Wn.2d 241; 797 P.2d 516; 558 P.2d 1350; 713 P.2d 796; 543 P.2d 325; 80 Wn.App. 391; 466 U.S. 648; 909 P.2d 320; 58 Wn.App. 588; 794 P.2d 526; 100 Wn.2d 212; 88 Wn.2d 167
Cited Statutes: None
Date: 02/01/2001

Washington cases hold that a judgment is void if the defendant was altogether denied his right to counsel.  See State v. Ponce, 93 Wn.2d 533, 540, 611 P.2d 407, 411 (1980) (conviction entered in violation of defendant’s right to counsel is void and subject to collateral attack); City of Seattle v. Ratliff, 100 Wn.2d 212, 219, 667 P.2d 630, 634 (1983). 

It has long been settled in Washington that if a defendant has been denied his right to counsel, any conviction thus obtained is void.  See Ponce, 93 Wn.2d at 540, 611 P.2d at 411; United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984) (denial of counsel at critical stage of proceedings); Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988) (complete denial of counsel on appeal).  The Washington Supreme Court has squarely held that representation by a Rule 9 Intern who fails to comply with the conditions placed upon his or her practice is "an absolute denial of the right to counsel which requires reversal."  Ratliff, 100 Wn.2d at 219, 667 P.2d at 634. 

As has been pointed out, proving the simple matter of one’s identity is not a resort to extrinsic evidence.  See State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 190, 713 P.2d 796 (1986).  Other cases illustrate that matters of public […]

Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder

To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!

(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)