Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Washington v. D.D.H.
Date: 01-21-2025
Case Number: 87068-8-I
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, King County, Washington
Plaintiff's Attorney: King County, Washington District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney: Click Here For The Best * Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Seattle, Washington criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
D.H. pleaded guilty to second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the trial court ordered D.H. to register as a felony firearm offender under RCW 9.41.330. D.H. appeals, challenging the statute as unconstitutionally vague.
* * *
Legal issue Is the statute requiring felony firearm offenders to register unconstitutionally vague?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE. This case addresses the issue of whether the firearm registration statute, RCW 9.41.330, is unconstitutionally vague and therefore a violation of due process rights.
CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING GUIDELINES. The case confirms that the void for vagueness doctrine does not apply to discretionary sentencing guidelines, which include the statute requiring registration as a felony firearm offender.
Key Phrases Unlawful possession of a firearm. Felony firearm offender. Void for vagueness doctrine. Propensity for violence. Sentencing guidelines.
D.H. pleaded guilty to second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the trial court ordered D.H. to register as a felony firearm offender under RCW 9.41.330. D.H. appeals, challenging the statute as unconstitutionally vague.
* * *
Legal issue Is the statute requiring felony firearm offenders to register unconstitutionally vague?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE. This case addresses the issue of whether the firearm registration statute, RCW 9.41.330, is unconstitutionally vague and therefore a violation of due process rights.
CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING GUIDELINES. The case confirms that the void for vagueness doctrine does not apply to discretionary sentencing guidelines, which include the statute requiring registration as a felony firearm offender.
Key Phrases Unlawful possession of a firearm. Felony firearm offender. Void for vagueness doctrine. Propensity for violence. Sentencing guidelines.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Washington v. D.D.H.?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard State of Washington v. D.D.H.?
This case was heard in Superior Court, King County, Washington, WA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in State of Washington v. D.D.H.?
Plaintiff's attorney: King County, Washington District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best * Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Washington v. D.D.H. decided?
This case was decided on January 21, 2025.