Dcyf v. State Of Washington & Damion Diaz ( 2018 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
October 30, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 51707-8-II
Respondent,
v.
DAMION LAMAR DIAZ, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Defendant,
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
Appellant.
WORSWICK, J. — The Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families
(Department)1 appeals the trial court’s order requiring the Department to pay contempt sanctions
for its failure to admit Damion Diaz to Western State Hospital. The Department argues that the
trial court improperly imposed punitive sanctions by failing to adhere to certain requirements.
The State concedes error.
We hold that because the trial court did not properly follow procedural requirements, the
trial court erred by imposing punitive sanctions. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order
as to punitive sanctions and remand with instructions for the court to enter a judgment imposing
only appropriate remedial sanctions against the Department.
1
The Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families was formerly known as
the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.
No. 51707-8-II
FACTS
On March 9, 2016, the trial court ordered the Department to admit Damion Diaz for a
competency evaluation by March 16, 2016, in his then-pending criminal proceeding. After the
Department failed to admit Diaz, his defense attorney filed a motion to show cause directing the
Department to appear and show cause as to why an order dismissing the case and an order of
contempt should not be granted.
During the show cause hearing, the Department argued that the court could not impose
punitive sanctions for contempt because doing so would be improper unless the State separately
filed for such sanctions. The trial court responded by stating that “the Legislature doesn’t seem
to be doing anything to cure the problem” and that sanctions “are justified that they need to
follow these court orders.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 6.
The court found the Department in contempt and ordered the Department to pay
sanctions in the amount of $500 per day from the day Diaz should have been admitted, March
16, 2016, until Diaz was actually admitted for evaluation, April 26, 2016. The trial court later
entered a judgment of $20,500 against the Department, based on its failure to admit Diaz for a
total of 41 days. The Department appeals the trial court’s order and judgment as it relates to
punitive damages.2
2
The Department states that it does not challenge the portion of the trial court’s order and
judgment that relates to remedial sanctions against it.
2
No. 51707-8-II
ANALYSIS
The Department argues that the trial court improperly imposed punitive contempt
sanctions because it did not follow procedural requirements. The State concedes error, and we
agree.
A court’s authority to impose contempt sanctions is a question of law, which we review
de novo. In re Silva, 166 Wash. 2d 133, 140, 206, P.3d 1240 (2009). Contempt of court is the
intentional disobedience of any lawful court order. See RCW 7.21.010(1)(b); In re Detention of
Young, 163 Wash. 2d 684, 691, 185 P.3d 1180 (2008). The court can impose either remedial or
punitive sanctions for contempt. See Silva, 166 Wash. 2d at 141.
Remedial sanctions are civil in nature and are intended to coerce performance. Silva, 166
Wash. 2d at 141. Punitive sanctions are designed to punish a party for past contempt of court.
Silva, 166 Wash. 2d at 141. Punitive sanctions are criminal in nature and as such, a court must
afford a contemnor full criminal due process to impose punitive contempt sanctions. Silva, 166
Wash. 2d at 141.
The first question here is whether the sanctions imposed by the court were remedial or
punitive. In determining whether sanctions are punitive or remedial, we look to whether the
sanctions have a coercive effect, meaning determining whether “the contemnor is able to purge
the contempt.” In re Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d 632, 646, 174 P.3d 11 (2007) (quoting
Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828, 114 S. Ct. 2552, 129 L.
Ed. 2d 642 (1994). If the contemnor can purge the contempt, then the sanctions are viewed as
remedial. See In re Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d at 646.
3
No. 51707-8-II
Here, the trial court ordered the Department to pay $500 from the date that Diaz was
originally supposed to be admitted for evaluation until the date Diaz was actually admitted. The
court’s order did not allow the Department to purge the contempt. Because the court’s sanctions
were used to punish past conduct and the Department had no opportunity to purge the contempt,
the court’s sanctions were punitive. Because the trial court imposed punitive sanctions, we next
look to whether the trial court met the requirements for imposing punitive sanctions.
A court may punish a past contemptuous act with a fine and/or imprisonment. See RCW
7.21.050(2). Because of due process concerns, RCW 7.21.040 provides a procedure to ensure
that a party facing such a sanction actually committed the contemptuous act. See In re M.B., 101
Wash. App. 425, 453, 3 P.3d 780 (2000). Unless the contemptuous act occurred in the presence of
a judge certifying the same, the procedure requires the county prosecutor or city attorney to file a
complaint or an information, and for a trial to occur before a neutral judge. See RCW
7.21.040(2), .050(1); see also In re Mowery, 141 Wash. App. 263, 276, 169 P.3d 835 (2007).
Without following such procedures, a court lacks the authority to impose punitive sanctions. See
State v. Sims, 1 Wash. App. 2d 472, 480, 406 P.3d 649 (2017), review granted, 190 Wash. 2d 1012
(2018).
Here, the contemptuous act did not occur in the presence of the judge, and the State did
not file the required pleading to seek punitive sanctions. Thus, the trial court did not afford the
Department the required procedure. RCW 7.21.040(2), .050(1). For this reason, the trial court
lacked authority to impose punitive sanctions.
4
No. 51707-8-II
Because the trial court did not follow the procedures required to enforce punitive
contempt sanctions under RCW 7.21.040, the trial court improperly imposed punitive sanctions
against the Department.3
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court imposed punitive sanctions but failed to follow the required
procedures needed to impose punitive sanctions, the trial court erred. We accept the State’s
concession and reverse the trial court’s order imposing punitive sanctions, and remand to the trial
court to enter a judgment reflecting the appropriate amount of remedial sanctions.
3
The Department also appears to alternatively argue that even under the court’s inherent
contempt authority, the trial court was unable to impose punitive sanctions against the
Department. The State does not address the court’s inherent contempt authority in its brief.
Courts are vested with an “inherent contempt authority,” which allows courts to impose
sanctions independently, so long as appropriate due process protections are provided. See A.K.,
162 Wash. 2d at 645. Inherent contempt authority is separate from statutorily granted contempt
power. A.K., 162 Wash. 2d at 645. In order to employ its inherent contempt authority, the courts
must find the legislatively prescribed procedures and remedies inadequate. See A.K., 162 Wash. 2d
at 647. A court improperly uses its inherent power when it fails to focus on the adequacy of the
statutory scheme and instead focuses on coerciveness. See Mowery, 141 Wash. App. at 284.
Here, the court did not properly use its inherent contempt authority. There is no evidence
in the record that the court addressed the available statutory remedies and procedures. The
court’s statement that the legislature did not “seem to be doing anything to cure the problem”
does not suffice as evidence that the court exhausted statutory requirements for imposing
punitive sanctions. VRP at 6. Instead, the court’s comments seem to be referring to the
Department’s inability to comply with the order, which is focused on coerciveness, not statutory
remedies and procedures.
Therefore, we agree with the Department that the trial court failed to properly employ its
inherent contempt authority in imposing punitive sanctions against the Department.
5
No. 51707-8-II
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Worswick, J.
We concur:
Maxa, C.J.
Bjorgen, J.
6