State of Washington v. M.N.H. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    MARCH 1, 2022
    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
    WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION THREE
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                          )
    )        No. 37686-9-III
    Respondent,              )
    )
    v.                                     )
    )
    M.N.H.,                                       )        UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    )
    Appellant.               )
    STAAB, J. — M.N.H pleaded guilty to felony harassment as a juvenile. The terms
    of her community supervision required M.N.H. to obtain an evaluation for drug and
    alcohol dependency and comply with any treatment recommendations. On July 13, 2020,
    the court issued an instant probation violation after M.N.H was discharged from a
    residential treatment program for rule violations. At a probation hearing, the court found
    by a preponderance of the evidence that M.N.H. had willfully violated the terms of her
    community supervision by being discharged from inpatient treatment. M.N.H. appeals,
    arguing that compliance with drug and alcohol treatment only requires abstinence and she
    was never required to complete treatment. We agree with the State that the appeal is now
    moot and the case does not raise a matter of continuing and substantial public interest.
    No. 37686-9-III
    State v. M.N.H.
    BACKGROUND
    M.N.H. entered the juvenile justice system when she was 14 years old. She
    pleaded guilty to felony harassment on February 24, 2020. The court imposed a
    disposition within the standard range. The terms of her community supervision included
    community service, and a drug and alcohol dependency evaluation and compliance with
    treatment recommendations.
    On May 19, 2020, an arrest warrant was issued for violation of the disposition
    order. At a review hearing held later that month, the State presented evidence that
    M.N.H.’s father had found empty alcohol bottles in her room that smelled like marijuana.
    The court found that M.N.H. willfully violated the condition to comply with drug and
    alcohol treatment as well as her curfew requirements. The court ordered 5 days of
    confinement with credit for four days already served.
    On June 9, 2020, the court issued another instant parole violation of the
    disposition. An arrest warrant was issued for violation of drug and alcohol conditions.
    During a subsequent hearing on June 16, M.N.H. admitted to the violation. The
    following day the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that M.N.H. had
    willfully violated the conditions by not completing the community service hours, failing
    to comply with the drug and alcohol treatment, and violating parental rules. The court
    expressed concern that M.N.H. was not addressing her treatment needs and ordered
    2
    No. 37686-9-III
    State v. M.N.H.
    M.N.H. to serve 30 days of detention, provided that she could be released early if a bed
    date became available at a residential program.
    Six days later, M.N.H. was released early to Daybreak Drug and Alcohol
    Residential Program. While at Daybreak, she participated in group therapy and
    individual therapy. Two weeks into her treatment, Yakima County Juvenile Probation
    Department filed an instant probation violation with the court. The report alleged that
    M.N.H. violated the court-ordered treatment because she had been discharged from
    Daybreak. M.N.H. was discharged from Daybreak for rule violations after she charged at
    another participant.
    At a hearing held on July 29, a juvenile probation counselor testified that M.N.H.
    was ordered to complete her in-patient treatments successfully. The juvenile court
    concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence that M.N.H. willfully violated the drug
    and alcohol conditions of her felony harassment disposition order when she was kicked
    out of treatment. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered on September
    18, 2020.
    ANALYSIS
    The State urges us to dismiss the appeal as moot. As the State points out, M.N.H.
    has served the entirety of her sanction and this court cannot provide any relief on appeal.
    As a general rule, the court does not consider cases that are moot or present only
    abstract questions. A case is moot if the court cannot provide effective relief. State v.
    3
    No. 37686-9-III
    State v. M.N.H.
    Hunley, 
    175 Wn.2d 901
    , 907, 
    287 P.3d 584
     (2012). At this time M.N.H.’s conditions are
    not being enforced. Nevertheless, M.N.H. argues that the court should consider her
    matter on the basis of a “continuing and substantial public interest.” State v. Beaver, 
    184 Wn.2d 321
    , 
    358 P.3d 385
     (2015). To determine whether a case presents an issue of
    continuing and substantial public interest, the court examines: “‘[(1)] the public or
    private nature of the question presented, [(2)] the desirability of an authoritative
    determination for the future guidance of public officers, and [(3)] the likelihood of future
    recurrence of the question.’” Sorenson v. Bellingham, 
    80 Wn.2d 547
    , 558, 
    496 P.2d 512
    (1972) (quoting People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 
    411 Ill. 618
    , 622, 
    104 N.E.2d 769
    (1952)).
    In this case, the applications of these factors supports a conclusion that the appeal
    is moot. First, the question presented in this appeal is largely fact specific. M.N.H.
    argues sufficiency of the evidence used to support the violation. This requires
    consideration of the unique facts presented. While we recognize that juvenile matters are
    generally short term, the need for public interest still requires an issue of continuing and
    substantial public interest.
    M.N.H also fails to demonstrate a need for appellate guidance on defining narrow
    terms of community supervision. She is not raising a constitutional issue, an issue of
    statutory interpretation, or even a procedural issue with broad ramifications. There is no
    4
    No. 37686-9-III
    State v. M.N.H.
    indication that this specific issue occurs frequently and that there is a need for further
    clarification.
    We hold that the issue presented on appeal is moot and the appeal should be
    dismissed.
    A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
    Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
    2.06.040.
    _________________________________
    Staab, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________________
    Lawrence-Berrey, J.
    _________________________________
    Siddoway, A.C.J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 37686-9

Filed Date: 3/1/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/1/2022