In the Matter of the Marriage of Harper, Court of Appeals No. 84532-2-I (2023). Successfully defended challenge to property distribution, maintenance, valuation and treatment of medical practice and future earnings, and character of large financial gift to the parties. Attorney fees awarded to the client.

In the Matter of the Marriage of Rich, Court of Appeals No. 83365-1-I (2023). Successfully reversed trial court’s relocation of children to Arizona, based on the trial court’s failure to understand seriousness of child’s medical and mental health needs; convinced appellate court that the trial court’s findings were not based on the evidence, that the trial court had considered irrelevant factors, that the trial court had wrongly disregarded the medical experts’ testimony about the child’s health, and had erred in finding the relocating party had good faith reasons to relocate, when it was proven at trial that the relocating party had lied about their reason for relocating.

In the Matter of the Marriage of Hodge, Court of Appeals No. 82557-7-I (2023). Won reversal of trial court’s order awarding client a portion of husband’s pension as an asset, and then ordering same pension to be distributed to her monthly as “maintenance.” Successfully reversed trial court’s 100% credit to husband of funds paid to maintain marital home during divorce proceedings. Convinced appellate court that trial court was wrong to include the income of other adults residing in client’s home when calculating maintenance where the evidence showed those adults contributed nothing to client’s expenses. Obtained order that court reconsider distribution of survivor benefit because it resulted in unjust distribution of marital property.

Short v. Schrader, Court of Appeals No. 54994-8-II (2022). Successfully reversed trial court’s ruling that mother may not relocate with child. Persuaded appellate court that trial court’s finding that relocation would not be a financial benefit to the mother and child was unsupported in the record; that trial court had misunderstood the mother’s motive for moving; that the trial court had double-counted a relocation factor against the mother; that the trial court erred when it counted six “neutral” factors as weighing against the mother’s relocation; and that the trial court had mistakenly ruled that it lacked authority to accept mother’s late answers to Requests For Admission.

In re the Parenting and Support of M.M.M., Court of Appeals No. 81788-4-I (2021). Successfully reversed trial judge’s severe restrictions on mother based on findings of abuse and neglect of a child, abusive use of conflict, and substance abuse. Judge’s findings were held to be an abuse of judicial discretion. Mother won the right to a new, more favorable parenting plan without these findings.

In re the Marriage of Hanify, Court of Appeals No. 82265-9-I (2021). Upheld father’s right to 50/50 residential schedule even though judge checked the box in the parenting plan saying only the father had a history of domestic violence; the judge’s other rulings and findings indicate that the judge’s intent was to find that both parties had committed domestic violence. Checking the box only for domestic violence by father was a clerical error. Motion For Discretionary Review successfully defended against.

In re: Bevan and Hagerman, Court of Appeals No. 80990-3-I (2021). Reversed trial judge’s failure to disqualify himself in parenting plan modification proceeding. Client received a new judge in superior court.

In the Matter of the Marriage of Chikoore, Court of Appeals No. 81123-1-I (2021). Successfully reversed all trial rulings against client. Won right to relocation which had been denied at trial; obtained primary custodianship of child/reversal of parenting plan; reversed denial of lifetime restraining order; reversed denial of RCW 26.09.191 restrictions on other parent; won the right to a different judge at rehearing. Obtained a ruling that the trial judge had exhibited bias against client throughout trial.

In the Matter of the Marriage of Moates, Court of Appeals No. 80937-7-I (2021). Successfully defended challenge to enforcement of client’s back child support medical and educational reimbursements stretching back 12 years.

United States v. Devore, Ninth Circuit Cause No. 17-30205 (2020). Reversed 35 year enhancement of client’s felony sentence.

In re the Matter of the Parenting and Support of A.J.B., Court of Appeals No. 79993-2-1 (2020). Reversed parenting plan finding that father had committed physical abuse against child, case remanded to trial court to remove the parenting restrictions against father.

Sayler v.Young, Court of Appeals No. 79026-9-I (2020). Reversed trial court’s “clarification” issued one year after divorce decree which had added $124,570 more in debt to client’s divorce obligation.

In re Custody of H.L.M., Court of Appeals No. 75448-3 (2017): Successfully defended grandmother’s third party custody status.

In re: Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292, 376 P.3d 350 (2016): On behalf of ACLU, amicus curiae, reversed termination of mother’s parental rights.

United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 719 F.3d 1086 (2013): Reversed federal sentence because suspended sentence does not count as probation in federal court, reduced client’s sentence.

Ivaniukovich v. Ivaniukovich, No. 11-3-01543-6 (2011): Obtained 90% of all property plus maintenance for client.

Jahed v. Sabegh, Court of Appeals No. 66606-1-I (2011): Obtained dismissal of all claims by appellant husband.

Riley v. Riley, No. 10-3-03690-7 (2011): Won 100% custody of child, protection order, and all property for client.

State v. Tibbles, 169 Wn.2d 364, 236 P.3d 885 (2010): Reversed conviction, established rule that odor of marijuana does not by itself justify search of a vehicle.

Sanchez v. Sanchez, No. 04-303248-6 (2006): Won 100% custody of both children, award of all property and the family business to client, domestic violence protection order for client.

In re Parentage of A.G., No. 98-500822-0 (2006): Obtained 100% child custody, child support, and domestic violence protection order for client.

State v. Leuluaialii, 118 Wn. App.780, 77 P.3d 1192 (2004): DNA finding overturned because State’s claim of a canine DNA match required a Frye hearing.

State v. Harrison, 148 Wn.2d 550, 61 P.3d 1104 (2003): Sentence reversed because State broke its plea agreement.

State v. Brask, RALJ Appeal No. 04-1-14993-9 (2005): Won new trial.

Hult, LeGault & Bachman v. Russell, Court of Appeals No. 23291-III (2005): Successfully defended appeal and enforced oral real estate contract.

State v. Kull,155 Wn.2d 80, 118 P.3d 307 (2005): Conviction reversed because police entry into apartment without resident’s permission, or suspicion of criminal activity or officer safety concern violates privacy provision of Washington Constitution.

State v. Rankin, 151 Wn.2d 689, 92 P.3d 202 (2004): Reversing conviction because requesting identification from a vehicle passenger without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity violates privacy provision of Washington Constitution.

State v. Whitfield, 99 Wn. App. 331, 994 P.2d 222 (1999): Successfully defended exceptional sentence below the standard range because victim provoked attack.

State v. Rulan C., 97 Wn. App. 884, 970 P.2d 821 (1999): Reversed conviction because cavity search of a child during drug bust was unconstitutional.

State v. Almanza-Guzman, 94 Wn. App. 563, 972 P.2d 468 (1999): Police stopped client for questioning only because he spoke Spanish, conviction reversed.