State of Washington v. Michael Robert Daggett ( 2018 )

FILED
APRIL 26, 2018
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. 35050-9-III
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
MICHAEL ROBERT DAGGETT, )
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. — M.D. appeals from a juvenile adjudication finding that he had
committed fourth degree assault. Because the sole issue raised by the appeal has been
resolved, albeit in an untimely manner, we dismiss the appeal and direct that no costs will
be awarded.
The adjudication was conducted in the Whitman County Juvenile Court on
January 26, 2017. M.D. filed a notice of appeal on February 6, 2017. JuCR 7.11(d)
requires the entry of written findings in every case that is appealed. The burden is on the
prosecutor to submit written findings “within 21 days after receiving the juvenile’s notice
of appeal.” Id. The rule does not set a deadline for the trial court to enter findings.
No. 35050-9-III
State v. M.R.D.
Our record does not reflect when the prosecutor submitted proposed findings. The
brief of appellant noted the absent findings on July 14. The trial court entered findings
on October 3, 2017, and the prosecutor filed the brief of respondent the following day.
That brief noted that the findings had now been entered. However, the findings were
never designated to this court as Clerk’s Papers. It also does not appear that notice of the
entry of findings was accorded counsel for the appellant. See, e.g., State v. Corbin, 79
Wash. App. 446, 451, 903 P.2d 999 (1995) (appellate counsel entitled to notice of
presentment and copy of late findings).
This court noted the absence of findings from the appellate record and directed
that they be designated to this court and that a copy be provided to appellant’s counsel.
Appellant’s counsel subsequently notified us by letter that no additional briefing would
be necessary. The letter also noted, quite properly, that the written findings accurately
reflected the judge’s oral ruling.
Since the sole relief sought by the appellant was remand for entry of findings, this
appeal is moot as we can no longer afford appellant any relief. E.g., In re Det. of
LaBelle, 107 Wash. 2d 196, 200, 728 P.2d 138 (1986). On that basis, we dismiss this
appeal.
Nonetheless, we note that the case should not have proceeded to this point. In an
ideal world, appellant would have filed motions to compel entry of the necessary findings
and stay his briefing obligation until after the findings had been entered. Even without
2
No. 35050-9-III
State v. MR.D.
that motion, the prosecutor should have promptly submitted findings to the trial court and
could have sought a stay of briefing pending entry of the findings if it appeared that the
trial judge was going to need time to enter them. Respondent also should have notified
appellant's counsel about the proposed findings and presentation. Corbin, 79 Wash. App.
446. Upon entry, respondent should have promptly submitted the findings to this court
by designating them as Clerk's Papers.
Although the appeal was taken before the findings needed to be entered, we cannot
say that appellant would have pursued this appeal further if the findings were timely
entered. Under the circumstances, we waive costs.
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.
WE CONCUR:
:t�, ·
S-
Pennell, A.CJ.
3