State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alfonzia Allen, App. ( 2015 )

^'HnG'fi'
OJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 71606-9-
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
ALFONZIA ALLEN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: April 27, 2015
Lau, J. —Alfonzia Allen pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to assault in the
second degree. He appeals the trial court's order denying him credit against his term of
civil commitment for time spent in jail before his commitment. After Allen filed this
appeal, he completed his term of commitment and was unconditionally released into the
community. Because no issues of continuing and substantial public interest are
implicated, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
FACTS
On June 1, 2005, Alfonzia Allen pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to
assault in the second degree. The trial court ordered him committed to Western State
Hospital for medical treatment pursuant to chapter 10.77 RCW. Approximately two
71606-9-1/2
years before his release date,1 Allen filed a motion for immediate release arguing that
due process and equal protection under the state and federal constitutions entitled him
to precommitment credit for time served in jail against his ten year term of civil
commitment. The trial court denied the motion. Allen appealed.
ANALYSIS
The parties agree that this issue is moot because in March 2015, Allen
completed his term of commitment and was unconditionally released into the
community. But Allen argues that we should consider his appeal as a matter of
substantial public interest. We disagree.
A case is moot "when it involves only abstract propositions or questions, the
substantial questions in the trial court no longer exist, or a court can no longer provide
effective relief." Spokane Research & Def. Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wash. 2d 89, 99,
117 P.3d 1117 (2005). The issue of mootness "is directed at the jurisdiction of the
court." Citizens for Financially Responsible Gov't v. City of Spokane, 99 Wash. 2d 339,
350, 662 P.2d 845 (1983). Consequently, the issue of mootness may be raised at any
time. Citizens, 99 Wash. 2d at 350. "As a general rule, we will not review a question that
has become moot." Citizens, 99 Wash. 2d at 350.
In rare instances, however, we may exercise our discretion and address a moot
issue where "matters of continuing and substantial public interest are involved."
Sorensen v. City of Bellinqham, 80 Wash. 2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). We consider
three factors to determine whether a moot issue warrants review: "(1) whether the issue
is of a public or private nature, (2) whether an authoritative determination is desirable to
1Western State Hospital calculated Allen's release date as March 8, 2015.
-2-
71606-9-1/3
provide future guidance to public officers, and (3) whether the issue is likely to recur."
State v. Veazie. 123 Wash. App. 392, 397, 98 P.3d 100 (2004).
Allen's appeal does not satisfy any of the three factors required to justify
reviewing it under the public interest exception. His appeal is more private than public,
dealing with fact specific determinations made in his case only. Although it's possible
that these issues will recur, the current statutes, and well established constitutional case
law, appear to give sufficient guidance to public officers. Because the case is moot and
presents no issues of substantial public interest, we dismiss the appeal.
WE CONCUR:
-3-