In Lute and Peninger, however, the Court of Appeals ruled on both the excepted claims under RCW 10.73.100 and the time-barred claims under RCW 10.73.090.
Summary of this case from Powell v. LambertNos. 39973-0-I; 40722-8-I.
June 22, 1998. UNREPORTED OPINION
Appeals from the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-06007-1, Richard A. Jones, J., entered January 23, 1995,
Judgment affirmed and petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
In Lute and Peninger, however, the Court of Appeals ruled on both the excepted claims under RCW 10.73.100 and the time-barred claims under RCW 10.73.090.
Summary of this case from Powell v. LambertIn State v. Lute, 91 Wash.App. 1031, 1998 WL 329610 (Wash.Ct.App. June 22, 1998), Lute filed a personal restraint petition asserting numerous claims, all but one of which were time-barred under RCW 10.73.090.
Summary of this case from Powell v. LambertFull title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent , v. NICKEY DAVID LUTE, Appellant . In…
Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Date published: Jun 22, 1998
The Court of Appeals, however, did not dismiss the petition in this manner, and it gave no hint as to the…