At Smith & White, PLLC we are fully vaccinated against COVID for your safety and convenience. Zoom and Webex meetings remain available.

Justia Lawyer Rating
AV Preeminent
Avvo Client's Choice Award 2018
Avvo Rating 10 - Top Attorney
BBB Business Accredited
2019 Champion of Justice


Respecto al uso general de “borrar antecedentes penales” es importante distinguir que, si usted es residente del estado de Washington, eliminar o borrar su “historial criminal” solo es posible en casos de delitos por los que usted nunca fue condenado. Si existió una condena, no existe la posibilidad de eliminar esos antecedentes. Sí, existe sin embargo la posibilidad de revocar o revertir la condena pero no se borra, no es como si nunca hubiese existido.

Este proceso involucra peticionar ante la corte (enlace en inglés), no ante la Patrulla del Estado de Washington.

A continuación, abordaremos el hipotético escenario en el que usted haya sido condenado y esté evaluando la posibilidad de revocar sus antecedentes penales.

Cómo peticionar

Los pedidos concernientes a la revocación de antecedentes deben hacerse ante la administración de la corte que emitió la resolución. Por lo tanto, solo la corte que trató su caso podrá considerar pedidos referentes a este. Cuando hay casos en más de una corte, debe acudirse a cada una de ellas.

El éxito de una petición de revocación de un antecedente dependerá del tipo de delito y la corte que dictó el veredicto (de adultos o juveniles).


Continue reading

Woman-black-background-213x300In Washington criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. Specifically, the State must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the charged offense. If it cannot, the defendant should be deemed not guilty. Recently, a Washington court discussed what evidence is needed to prove a defendant committed an assault offense in a case in which the State charged the defendant with more than forty crimes. If you are accused of assault, it is in your best interest to speak to a Washington assault defense attorney to assess your options for seeking a just outcome.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant and the victim began dating in March 2016. Shortly after they began dating, the defendant advised the victim that he would leave his girlfriend if the victim would prostitute herself for money. The victim began posting prostitution ads and going on prostitution calls and gave the money she earned to the defendant.

Allegedly, after the victim became a prostitute, the defendant began to hit, cut, burn, and sexually abuse her. He threatened to kill her if she did not do as he directed or attempted to leave him. In January 2018, the State charged the defendant with 45 separate criminal offenses, including second-degree assault. He was convicted on over forty counts, including the assault charges, and he appealed, arguing the State lacked sufficient evidence to prove his guilt. Continue reading

MoneyA conviction for a DUI crime may result in significant criminal and civil penalties, including fines. The courts have the discretion to decide whether to impose some fines, while others are mandatory. Generally, mandatory fines may only be suspended in limited circumstances, and if the court suspends such penalties without conducting the required analysis, they may be reinstituted, as demonstrated in a recent Washington matter in which the defendant was convicted of a DUI crime and other offenses. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is advisable to confer with a Washington DUI defense lawyer to discuss what defenses you may be able to set forth to avoid a conviction.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was arrested and charged with numerous crimes, including DUI. The jury convicted him of the charged offenses, and the court imposed numerous costs and discretionary legal financial obligations. Specifically, the court imposed $1,245.00 in DUI fees, fines, and assessments, and $200 for a blood alcohol content fee. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct an individualized analysis as to his ability to pay the fees.

¿Puedo borrar antecedentes penales en Washington? Opciones si usted no fue condenado.Shredded-Paper

Lo primero que hay que aclarar antes de abordar este tema, es que existen dos términos que parecen ser lo mismo, pero no lo son.

En inglés, estos términos son “expungement” y “vacation”, y en español muchas veces son traducidos como “borrar antecedentes”. Sin embargo, puede ser más entendible pensar en sus traducciones como “suprimir” y “revocar”.


Hace solo algunos meses, las consecuencias por posesión de droga en el estado de Washington dieron cambio por completo. El caso que desató el cambio de paradigma fue Blake vs el estado de Washington.

Shannon Blake fue arrestada en el año 2016 en el marco de una investigación por robo de vehículos. Fue entonces cuando un policía descubrió que tenía una bolsa de metanfetamina en el bolsillo de sus jeans. Blake se defendió diciendo que los jeans no eran suyos sino de un amigo y que desconocía que había droga en el bolsillo.

La carga probatoria

locker-of-guns-300x214In Washington, people convicted of felonies are often barred from owning or possessing firearms. As such, if the police find guns in the possession of a convicted felon, it can lead to criminal charges and sentence enhancements. Further, the penalties can increase with the number of weapons found. Recently, a Washington court issued an opinion explaining the grounds for imposing multiple firearms enhancements in criminal cases, in a matter in which the defendant appealed his sentence. If you are accused of a weapons crime, it is advisable to meet with a Washington weapons charges defense lawyer regarding your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest, Trial, and Sentencing

It is reported that a confidential informant advised the police that the defendant, a convicted felon on parole, possessed two weapons: a rifle and a shotgun. He sold the weapons to an undercover officer the following day. Approximately three months later, he was indicted on an unlawful possession of a firearm charge, and was arrested the following day. Officers searched his residence and found a revolver. They searched his storage unit as well and found two more guns.

Allegedly, the defendant entered a guilty plea. The pre-sentence report recommended, among other things, a level-two enhancement because the crime involved five firearms. The enhancement was applied, after which the defendant appealed. Continue reading

La posesión de armas de fuego en Washington es considerada un derecho y privilegio por ser residentes legales de suelo norteamericano. Ciertas ofensas, sin embargo, acaban con estos privilegios.

¿Qué razoFirearm-300x210nes pueden hacer que pierda mi derecho a tener armas de fuego?

La legislación del estado de Washington menciona expresamente personas y circunstancias en las que la posesión de armas de fuego es ilegal.

Under both Washington and Federal law, people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. This means, in part, that the police cannot detain or interrogate people without a warrant, with few exceptions. One such exception is the Terry stop, which is an investigatory stop conducted due to a suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity. The scope of the Terry stop exception is narrow, though, and searches that fall outside of the scope may constitute custodial arrests without a warrant in violation of constitutional rights. The standards for reviewing the nature of a stop were recently explained by a Washington court, in an opinion issued in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of firearms. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is smart to consult a Washington weapons charges defense lawyer to assess whether your rights were violated.

The Defendant’s Stop

It is reported that the defendant was driving his vehicle when an officer recognized him and followed him to a nearby restaurant parking lot. The officer was aware that there was a warrant out for the defendant’s arrest and that he was a convicted felon. The officer, along with two other officers, tackled the defendant inside of the restaurant, held him down and handcuffed him. They then advised him that he was under arrest for a felony crime. One of the officers then questioned the defendant, who admitted he had a gun.

Allegedly, the officer located the weapon, and the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the handgun found during the search, arguing the police did not have the lawful authority to search and detain him. the court denied his motion, finding that the Terry stop exception applied, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

After a person is charged with a criminal offense, the court will conduct various hearings, including one in which the defendant is asked to enter a plea. While a person’s first inclination is usually to plead not guilty, in some cases, it makes sense to enter a guilty plea. Even if pleading guilty is the best strategy, it is not a decision to be made lightly, as it can have significant ramifications. Thus, the court must ensure that a defendant who wishes to enter a guilty plea is making an educated and consensual decision to do so; otherwise, the plea may be deemed involuntary. The criteria for establishing an involuntary guilty plea were the topic of a recent Washington ruling in a case in which the defendant was convicted of assault. If you are accused of assault, it is wise to speak to a Washington assault defense lawyer to evaluate your options.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous crimes relating to the death of the victim. After the charges had been pending for over a year, the State filed an amended information with nine charges, including first-degree assault with a firearm. Several months later, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a count of second-degree assault and a count of first-degree manslaughter.

Allegedly, the defendant provided a written statement at the plea hearing that asserted he was guilty of second-degree assault because he assaulted the victim. The court reviewed the plea statement with the defendant and confirmed that he had reviewed it with his attorney. Thus, the defendant was found guilty as charged. He later appealed, arguing that his plea was involuntary. Continue reading

One of the fundamental rights provided by both the Constitution and state law is the protection against self-incrimination. In other words, parties cannot be compelled to submit to interrogation that would force them to make statements that would implicate their guilt. If a party says something incriminating on his or her own volition, though, the statement may be admissible as evidence at a criminal trial. In a recent Washington domestic violence matter, an appellate court issued an opinion discussing the nuances of the right against self-incrimination, ultimately upholding the trial court’s decision to admit incriminating statements. If you are charged with a domestic violence offense, it is smart to meet with a Washington domestic violence defense lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Alleged Attack

Reportedly, the defendant became suspicious that his girlfriend was having an affair. He drove to a location where she was meeting with another man and, when he arrived, slammed his truck into reverse, striking his girlfriend’s vehicle. The defendant’s girlfriend, who was getting into the car at the time, fell to the ground, suffering injuries. The police arrested the defendant and charged him with numerous crimes, including domestic violence assault. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made in a phone call to his girlfriend regarding the assault, but the court denied his motion. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court erred in denying his motion.

Protections Against Self-Incrimination

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court deprived him of his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Washington law because the phone call with his girlfriend constituted a custodial interrogation. The court rejected his argument. The court explained that pursuant to the Miranda ruling, a person accused of a crime has the right to an attorney during a custodial interrogation, even if the State has not filed formal charges against the person. Continue reading

Contact Information