Opinions: residential banishment and fire districts

Posted on May 5, 2011 by Michael Reitz

Today the Supreme Court issued decisions in three cases.

In re Detention of Gale West, No. 82568-8. Gale West was found by a jury to be a sexually violent predator (SVP), and the trial court entered a civil commitment order which the Court of Appeals upheld. West challenges the ruling, saying he was prejudiced by the trial court’s rulings on evidence in the trial, and that he was entitled to discovery of the SVP evaluations done for other persons by the State’s expert witness. The Supreme Court (Justice Mary Fairhurst writing), upholds West’s conviction, rejecting his argument that witness testimony about the conditions and treatment phases at the Special Commitment Center was inadmissible. The court agrees in part that the court wrongfully denied West’s request for the State’s expert witness work product. But because this error was harmless, the Supreme Court upholds the decisions below. Justice Pro Tem Richard Sanders dissents.

State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Jack Irvin Sims directly appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge only a particular condition of his sentence while not challenging his underlying conviction.
Sims pleaded guilty to one count of first degree molestation of a child.

The trial court imposed imposing a sentence of 60 months to life to be suspended after 180 days of confinement as long as Sims followed all the sentencing conditions. The judge imposed a lifetime no-contact order and, over Sims’ objection, ordered him not to reside in Cowlitz County and to not never enter the city limits of Castle Rock, where the incident took place and the victim continued to reside.

Sims appealed, challenging only the condition banning him from Cowlitz County and Castle Rock. The State conceded that the condition Sims challenged was unconstitutional and then argued that his entire sentence should be invalided and remanded to trial court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court (Justice Susan Owens writing) ruled on the proper scope of remand:

The proper remedy in this case is resentencing for the limited purpose of narrowly tailoring the geographic condition of Sims’s SSOSA sentence that currently banishes him from Cowlitz County. A broader remedy was not properly before the Court of Appeals because such a remedy is affirmative relief for the State, for which the State did not file a cross appeal and which is not demanded by the necessities of the case. We remand to the trial court for resentencing for the purpose of making the vacated banishment condition constitutionally sound.

Justice Debra Stephens dissents, arguing the majority decision “wholly discounts the trial court’s discretion” for resentencing.

Whatcom County Fire Dist. No. 21 v. Whatcom County, No. 83611-6. Writing for the majority of the court, Justice Owens observed: “At bottom, this case is a dispute between two independent municipal corporations over whether completion of the proposed developments would reduce fire protection services below an adequate level of service.”

In 2006, Whatcom County approved three land use applications for development in the Birch Bay urban growth area. Whatcom County Fire District No. 211 filed a land use petition challenging the approvals. The fire district asserted that it was not equipped to provide adequate services with the arrival of additional structures.

The superior court granted the fire district’s petition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the County’s comprehensive plan had established the adequacy and availability of fire protection. The appeals court reinstated the approvals.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the approval of the land use applications. The court determined that had Whatcom County assigned responsibility for assessing the adequacy of fire protection services to the Fire District by adopting a county code prohibits approval of certain land uses without a letter of adequacy from the fire district. Justice Tom Chambers dissents.

Tags: , , ,

Today's arguments - November 9, 2010

Posted on November 9, 2010 by Jonathan Bechtle

Today the Court will hear four arguments as usual, two in the morning session, and two in the afternoon.  (Docket, briefs)

Morning session (9:00 a.m.)

Samantha A v. WA Dept. of Social & Health Services, No. 84325-2. Whether it violates Federal Medicaid laws to reduce a disabled child's paid care due to the child's age or if the child lives with parents.

As part of Medicaid, DSHS provides paid personal care for disabled people. The extent of the care is based on a variety of eligibility factors that are re-evaluated periodically. A “children's personal care rule” reduces the amount of paid care a child can receive based on the child's age or if the child is living with parents (who already have a duty to care for the child).

This rule was challenged on behalf of a child named Samantha A. The challenge claims (and the Superior Court agreed) that the children's personal care rule violates Federal Medicaid law “requiring comparability of amount, duration, and scope of services among all recipients.” This is because the rule treats disabled children differently based on their ages and on their relation to their caregivers.

News Tribune v. Honorable James Cayce, No. 83645-1. Whether the public has a right to view a deposition taken in a courtroom and presided over by a judge.

Pierce County Superior Court judge Michael Hecht was charged with harassment and patronizing a prostitute. James Cayce, a visiting judge from King County, presided over the case. One of the key witnesses was in custody, so the prosecution received permission to conduct his deposition in an available courtroom. (The courtrooms have secure access to the jail.) Judge Cayce was present at the parties' request to rule on objections.

A reporter from the News Tribune was denied access to the deposition proceedings. The Tribune filed for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Cayce to order the prosecution to produce a transcript and video recording of the deposition. The Tribune argues that since the deposition was presided over by a judge in court, they had a constitutional right to be present. Judge Cayce argues that the deposition was not a court proceeding.

Afternoon session (1:30 p.m.)

State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Whether an appellate court striking down an element of a special sex offender sentencing agreement should ask the trial court to rehear just that section, or the entire agreement.

Jack Sims was convicted of child molestation and sentenced to life in prison. His sentence was suspended under a Sex Offender Special Sentencing Alternative (SOSSA) sentence. One condition of the SOSSA sentence was that Sims stay out of Cowlitz County and the City of Castle Rock.

Sims appealed this condition. The appellate court found the condition unconstitutional and vacated his sentence, remanding for resentencing. Sims argues that the appellate court should not have vacated the entire sentence because only the “banishment” condition was appealed, and allowing the trial court to reconsider the SOSSA sentence harms his right to appeal (since the trial court could refuse to grant Sims a SOSSA sentence on remand).

Community Transit v. First Transit, No. 83795-1. Concerns which public transport agency is responsible for tort claims from a traffic accident.

Community Transit contracted with First Transit to provide commuter bus service between King and Snohomish Counties. Part of the contract required First Transit to indemnify (pay) Community Transit for tort claims, except for those “resulting solely from the negligence of Community Transit.”

A Community Transit bus and a First Transit bus were involved in a multiple-car accident on I-5. The accident was caused by the negligence of the Community Transit driver and a third party driver; both parties agree that First Transit was not negligent. Community Transit settled several negligence claims by passengers, and filed indemnity claims against First Transit.

Community Transit argues that since the accident was not solely its fault, First Transit must indemnify them under the contract. But the appellate court ruled that the contract does not clearly state that First Transit must indemnify Community Transit even if First Transit did not cause or contribute to the accident. The court found that such a statement would be required to make one party indemnify another for the other party's own negligence, and ruled against Community Transit.

Tags: , , , ,

New cases accepted for review

Posted on March 3, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review during its March 2 conference.

  • Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6
  • State v. Sims, No. 83779-1
  • Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3
  • ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7
  • State v. Simms, No. 83826-7
  • State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4

Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6. Qualcomm is seeking a refund of retail sales taxes it paid after a Department of Revenue ruling. Qualcomm sells a communications system to trucking companies to assist them with tracking and managing vehicles. After an audit, the Department of Revenue determined that Qualcomm was improperly paying the lower business and occupations (B & O) tax service rate, and DOR assessed Qualcomm $900,573 based on its assumption that the tracking portion of Qualcomm's system is a “network telephone service,” which is taxed at a higher rate. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) upheld the Department of Revenue assessment.

State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Jack Sims pled guilty of first degree child molestation. He was sentenced to in prison, with 60 months of minimum mandatory confinement, but the court suspended this sentence in imposing a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative. The court also entered an order prohibiting Sims from entering or residing in Cowlitz County. Sims appealed this banishment, arguing it is a violation of his right to due process and equal protection under the constitution. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the order banishing Sims from the county for life impermissibly impinged on his constitutional right to travel. The Court vacated the entire sentence, including the banishment, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3. Coach USA Transit contracted with Community Transit to provide commuter transit service between King and Snohomish counties. Thereafter Coach USA Transit assigned the contract to First Transit. In 2004, a 5-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 5 involving both a First Transit bus and a Community Transit bus. Community Transit settled 42 claims incurring $1,250,950 to investigate and settle the claims. First Transit refused to defend or indemnify Community Transit, despite an indemnification clause in the party’s contract. Community Transit sued, seeking to enforce the indemnity clause. The trial court ruled in First Transit’s favor. Community Transit argued the agreement requires First Transit to indemnify it for tort claims caused by the combined negligence of Community Transit and third parties, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held the contract does not does not clearly and unequivocally state this intention, and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against First Transit.

ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7. The State Gambling Commission denied ZDI Gaming’s application to distribute electronic pull-tab machine incorporating cash card technology, finding ZDI’s pull tab machine was an illegal “gambling device.” A Thurston County Superior Court judge overruled the Commission. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the Commission’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and ruled in ZDI’s favor.

State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Daniel Simms was convicted of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. As he was armed when committing the crimes the length of confinement for the firearm sentencing enhancements was doubled. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether there is a constitutional requirement to give notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty.

State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4. The Thurston County Superior Court denied Samuel Donaghe’s motion to issue a RCW 9.94A.637(1) certificate of discharge for his rape convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed. The Supreme Court has consolidated this case with State v. Jones, No. 83451-2.

Tags: , , , , , ,