Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by way of a personal restraint petition, obtained an order vacating his conviction after a remand to the superior court from the Supreme Court to determine if the conflict of interest on the part of Denend resulted in Richardson's being denied effective assistance of counsel. See In re Richardson, 100 Wn.2d 669, 675 P.2d 209 (1983). 2 Alternatively, he argued that the statute of limitations was tolled, pursuant to RCW 4.16.190, during his incarceration from March 30 through May 30, 1978, and, following an unsuccessful appeal, from February 7,1980, through October 30, 1981. The trial court resolved this issue adversely to Richardson. Richardson has not assigned error to this ruling and, thus, we do not address this issue. See State v. Hubbard, 103 Wn.2d 570, 574, 693 P.2d 718 (1985) (<HOLDING>). 3 Pursuant to RCW 4.16.170, an action is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case (B) holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level (C) holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals (D) holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error (E) holding that appellant waives right to complain of ruling to which no error was assigned
Output (English): holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level