COA Division 1 agrees that restitution must be causally related even under the very broad Crime Victim Compensation Program exception, rejecting the State’s appeal.
Remanded for resentencing because client was shackled during sentencing and the State failed to meet its burden of showing this unconstitutional error was harmless.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact:
Gabe Villarreal, Staff Attorney
August 17, 2026 – Last Friday, a request by the Washington Appellate Project (WAP) that the Office of Public Defense (OPD) maintain WAP’s funding during the lawsuit was denied by the Trial Court.
Without that funding, WAP faces potential closure in the next few months, leaving over 500 indigent parents and incarcerated people potentially without the effective assistance of appellate counsel guaranteed them by the State Constitution.
“We are disappointed by the ruling,” says Greg Link, WAP’s Executive Director. “But our fight to protect the constitutional rights of our clients is far from over.”
“WAP plans to appeal the denial, and today wasn’t a total loss. We appreciate the Court asking OPD to consider mediation. We’ve asked OPD to agree to mediation on several occasions. They’ve refused in the past, but we hope they agree now, especially given the Court’s statements.”
“In any case, our goal remains the same,” says Link, “a contract that allows us to ethically serve our clients as the Constitution requires.”
WAP’s lawsuit against OPD remains ongoing.
For over 30 years, WAP has upheld the highest standards of appellate defense, winning landmark victories like State v. Gregory and State v. Blake on behalf of indigent clients.
Please direct all press inquiries to gabe@washapp.org.
(Published Opinion) – Reversed and remanded for the trial court to remove the drug-monitoring patch condition from pretrial release requirements because it was unlawfully imposed absent the necessary authority of law under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
Reversed and remanded for new trial because the trial court erred by denying Clark’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. The State also violated Clark’s rights by using a refusal to consent to a warrantless search as substantive evidence of guilt.