The Washington State Supreme Court recently served the Island County prosecutor with some mixed news.

The good news — from the perspective of the prosecutor — is that the high court refused to review the 2001 conviction of Linda Miley or the slaying of Jack Pearson, Sr. in 1997 on Camano Island. A series of appeals, complicated by the Supreme Court’s controversial Andress decision, may be near the end.

“We are finally nearing the end of a very long road,” Prosecutor Greg Banks wrote in a press release. He tried the case and handled the appeals.

Miley is serving 13 years and six months in prison.

The bad news for Banks is that the same justices decided to review the conviction of former Oak Harbor resident James Alexander for killing his 21-month-old son Bryan in 1991.

The prosecutor’s office has a long history with Alexander. The former Navy man was originally convicted in 1991 of felony murder for beating the child to death after he spilled sunflower seeds and milk.

After serving nearly 14 years of a 25-year sentence, Alexander’s conviction was vacated by the Supreme Court’s Andress decision. The court reversed 26 years of established law and ruled that assault cannot be the underlying crime for felony murder — which it was in both the Miley and Alexander cases.

Prosecutors made a bold move and charged Alexander with homicide by abuse. Former Chief Criminal Prosecutor Steve Selby tried the case and won a conviction. Judge Vickie Churchill sentenced Alexander to 33 years and six months in prison, a longer sentence than the original conviction.

According to Banks, Alexander appealed his second conviction, claiming that the prosecutor should not have been permitted to charge him with homicide by abuse in the retrial. The legal theory of his argument is that it violates the state’s “mandatory joinder” rule, requiring the prosecution to join all possible charges in a single case.

The rule has a special exception allowing a trial judge to allow a successive prosecution if the “ends of justice” is thwarted by applying the rule.

“We argued that the Supreme Court’s Andress decision was so unusual, and so extraordinary, that justice would not be done if Alexander was released from prison with a clean record,” Banks wrote. “Judge Churchill agreed, which is how the re-trial was allowed to happen.”

The Court of Appeals agreed with Banks early this year and denied Alexander’s appeal. But last week the Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal, along with three other Andress cases.

Beyond the mandatory joinder issue, Alexander’s attorneys also argue that the prosecutors’ decision to charge him with homicide by abuse was vindictive and that Judge Churchill was allegedly biased and had a conflict of interest.

“I prevailed on those issues at the Court of Appeals,” Banks wrote, “and am confident the Supreme Court will see things the same way.”