State v. Trevino-Hernandez

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Trevino-Hernandez

433 P.3d 809, 192 Wash. 2d 1019

Washington Supreme Court·Decided February 6, 2019·No. No. 96472-6·Published

Opinion

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Madsen, Stephens, González and Yu, considered at its February 5, 2019, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b) and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the motion for extension of time is moot because the petition for review was timely filed. The petition for review and the "Motion for Production of Discovery Pursuant to CR 26" are both denied.

For the Court/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Madsen, Stephens, González and Yu, considered at its February 5, 2019, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b) and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the motion for extension of time is moot because the petition for review was timely filed. The petition for review and the "Motion for Production of Discovery Pursuant to CR 26" are both denied.

For the Court/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

State v. Trevino-Hernandez, 433 P.3d 809, 192 Wash. 2d 1019 (Wash. 2019).

Pincite

433 P.3d 809 (State v. Trevino-Hernandez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.