Personal Restraint Petition Of Maurice X. Witherspoon ( 2018 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
November 6, 2018
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the No. 52097-4-II
Personal Restraint Petition of
MAURICE X. WITHERSPOON.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
WORSWICK, P. — Maurice X. Witherspoon, who was convicted of crimes in Maryland but
has been transferred to the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC), seeks relief from
the deductions that the DOC is taking from his inmate account. He argues that the deductions
violate the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), chapter 72.74 RCW, and the contract between
Washington and Maryland under that compact. Witherspoon’s arguments fail, and we deny his
petition.
FACTS
Witherspoon was convicted of crimes by the State of Maryland. Witherspoon is currently
incarcerated at the Clallam Bay Corrections Center under the custody of the DOC facility pursuant
to the ICC and contract with the State of Maryland. The DOC deducts costs of incarceration and
costs to compensate crime victims from Witherspoon’s inmate account. Witherspoon filed this
current petition, asserting that the manner of his restraint is unlawful because the DOC’s
No. 52097-4-II
deductions from his inmate account violate the ICC and the contract with Maryland pursuant to
the ICC.
ANALYSIS
RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 require the DOC to take deductions from inmate
accounts to defray the costs of incarceration and to compensate crime victims. Those statutes
apply to all inmates, including “persons received from another state.” RCW 72.09.015(17).
Nothing in the ICC or the contract between Washington and Maryland provides otherwise. To the
contrary, the ICC requires that inmates sent to serve their sentences in Washington State “shall be
treated equally with such similar inmates of the receiving state as may be confined in the same
institution.” RCW 72.74.020(4)(e). And the contract between Washington and Maryland
provides,
While in custody of the receiving state, an [inmate] will be subject to all provisions
of law and regulations applicable to persons committed for violations of law of the
receiving state which are not inconsistent with the sentence imposed.
Resp. of the DOC (Ex. 2, Attach. B at 2). Deductions from inmate accounts under chapter 72.09
RCW do not implicate a judgment and sentence and, thus, are “not inconsistent with the sentence
imposed” here. Resp. of the DOC (Ex. 2, Attach. B at 2); In re Pers. Restraint of Pierce, 173
Wash. 2d 372, 386, 268 P.3d 907 (2011).
Because the deductions from Witherspoon’s inmate account are required under RCW
72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 and are not otherwise prohibited under the ICC or the contract
2
No. 52097-4-II
between Washington and Maryland, Witherspoon fails to demonstrate that the manner of his
restraint is unlawful. RAP 16.4(c)(6).1 Accordingly, we deny his petition.
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:
BJORGEN, J.
LEE, A.C.J.
1
For the first time in his reply brief, Witherspoon argues that the DOC’s deduction of funds from
his inmate account violates his right to due process. Because Witherspoon raises this argument
for the first time in his reply brief, we do not address it. In re Pers. Restraint of Krier, 108 Wn.
App. 31, 37 n.4, 29 P.3d 720 (2001). Moreover, mandatory deductions for the costs of
incarceration and victim compensation do not violate due process. In re Pers. Restraint of Metcalf,
92 Wash. App. 165, 176-77, 963 P.2d 911 (1998).
3