1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPELLATE BRIEF – 1
Kevin Scott Ewing
720 E Fairhaven Ave. Unit 119
Burlington, WA 982337004
Phone | Fax
Email
Appellant/Defendant in pro per
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR SKAGIT COUNTY
KEVIN SCOTT EWING,
Appellant/Defendant,
vs.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent/Plaintiff
Case No.: Number
APPELLATE BRIEF
NOW COMES Kevin Scott Ewing, Appellant/Defendant, and files this Appeal of the
Order on Infraction Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”) issued by the Skagit County
District Court, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
A. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to RCW 2.08.020 read with RCW
10.10.010.
2. Venue is proper in this Court because the alleged violation took place within
Skagit County.
B. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPELLATE BRIEF – 2
3. On 03/03/22, Appellant was pulled over by a police officer for a taillight that was
out. He removed his seat belt and switched off the engine.
4. Appellant began talking to the police officer. As they were talking, the officer’s
supervisor told him not to forget to include in the citation that Appellant was not wearing a seat
belt.
5. Appellant appeared at the trial court for the hearing. The complaining officer did
not appear and no one was sworn in to testify. The trial judge simply read out the complaining
officer’s affidavit as the Respondent’s facts.
6. The trial judge read out that the complaining officer was writing a citation to
someone else as Appellant passed him. Appellant informed the trial judge that it was impossible
for the supervisor to see that Appellant was not wearing a seat belt as the officers were turned to
the other driver who had also been pulled over, and that Appellant’s window was tinted.
7. Appellant explained to the trial judge that his license was still expired at the time
because he made three attempts while the Department of Motor Vehicles office was closed
during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, Appellant managed to secure his license
on time.
8. The trial judge issued the Order and convicted Appellant of the infractions of
failure to wear a safety belt and no valid operator license with valid I.D. He further directed that
Appellant should pay a fine of $139.00 for the first infraction and $553.00 for the second
infraction respectively, and a $10.00 time pay fee.
C. LEGAL ARGUMENT
The Prosecution Did Not Prove Its Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPELLATE BRIEF – 3
9. “In a criminal prosecution, due process requires the State to prove every element
of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Teal, 152 Wash. 2d 333, 337, 96 P.3d
974 (2004); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361-64, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed 2d 368 (1970).
10. “A reviewing court will reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence only where
no rational trier of fact could find that all elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wash. 2d 192, 201, 829, P.2d 1068 (1992).
11. In this case, the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Appellant was
not wearing a safety belt while driving. The State’s only evidence was the affidavit of the
complaining officer who did not even see Appellant as he was driving.
12. When Appellant passed him, the complaining officer’s back was turned to another
driver that he had pulled over. Appellant’s tinted window was rolled up. There is no way he
could have seen that Appellant did not have his safety belt on.
13. Appellant only removed his safety belt after he stopped when he was pulled over.
He also switched off the engine and rolled down his window, that’s when the supervisor asked
the police officer to include an infraction of failing to wear a safety belt.
14. There was no witness presented or sworn in at the hearing. Only the affidavit of
the complaining officer was read out. It was admitted by the State’s Attorney. In Trinsey v.
Pagliaro, 229 F. Supp. 647 (1964), it was held that “an attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit
evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness.”
The Trial Judge Erred in Fining Appellant $553.00 for the Infraction of No Valid
Operator License with Valid I.D.
15. RCW 46.20.015 provides in relevant part as follows: “(1) Except as previously
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPELLATE BRIEF – 4
exempted by this chapter, it is a traffic infraction and not a misdemeanor under RCW 46.20.005
if a person (a) drives any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without a valid license
issued to Washington residents under this chapter in his or her possession. (2) A person who
violates this section is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. If the person appears
before the court or submits by mail written proof that he or she obtained a valid license after
being cited, the court shall reduce the penalty to fifty dollars.”
16. Appellant did not have a valid license at the time he was pulled over because it
had expired and renewal at the Department of Motor Vehicles office was not possible because of
the Covid-19 pandemic. Appellant tried to renew it to no avail.
17. The circumstances that caused Appellant’s failure to renew were completely
beyond his control.
18. Appellant was diligent and went to get the license renewed. After renewal, he
appeared in court and stated that he had a valid license. The provision above clearly states that in
the circumstances, Appellant’s penalty should be reduced to fifty dollars.
19. However, the trial court erroneously maintained that Appellant’s penalty of
$553.00 stands, contrary to the law. The penalty should be reduced to fifty dollars.
D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to REVERSE the Order on Infraction Hearing, ACQUIT Appellant of the
infraction of failure to wear a safety belt, and REDUCE the penalty for no valid operator license
with valid I.D. to fifty dollars as required by RCW 46.20.015.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPELLATE BRIEF – 5
Dated this _____ day of July, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Kevin Scott Ewing,
Appellant/Defendant in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )