State of Washington v. Stephen Benton Harris, Jr. ( 2020 )

FILED
DECEMBER 3, 2020
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. 36951-0-III
) (consolidated with
Respondent, ) No. 36952-8-III)
)
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STEPHEN BENTON HARRIS JR., )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — RAP 2.4(b) allows appellate review of prior orders or
rulings, even those that were immediately appealable, if they prejudicially affect the
decision designated in the notice. One question before us is whether RAP 2.4(b) permits
appellate review of a criminal judgment and sentence when the decision designated in the
notice is an order revoking a drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) sentence.
Supreme Court authority constrains us to review the judgment and sentence.
Nevertheless, we generally affirm.
FACTS
Stephen Harris pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled
substance and one count of resisting arrest. On August 1, 2018, the trial court entered its
judgment and sentence. Specifically, the trial court imposed a DOSA sentence for the
drug offenses, determined that Harris was indigent, and imposed a number of community
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
custody conditions and various fees and assessments together with interest. The judgment
and sentence explicitly notified Harris he had 30 days to file a direct appeal and one year
to file a collateral attack.
Harris repeatedly violated the terms of his DOSA sentence. The State moved to
revoke Harris’s DOSA sentence and have him serve his sentence in confinement. On
June 17, 2019, the trial court heard argument and granted the State’s motion. On July 12,
2019, Harris appealed the DOSA revocation order.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Harris raises issues about his August 1, 2018 sentence. He does not
raise any issue about the June 17, 2019 DOSA revocation order. The State, citing
RAP 5.2(a), urges us to dismiss the appeal of the sentence as untimely. Harris, citing
RAP 2.4(b), argues his appeal of the sentence is timely.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
Generally, an appellate court will “review the decision or parts of the decision
designated in the notice of appeal . . . and other decisions in the case provided in sections
(b), (c), (d), and (e).” RAP 2.4(a). RAP 2.4(b) provides:
The appellate court will review a trial court order or ruling not designated in
the notice, including an appealable order, if (1) the order or ruling
prejudicially affects the decision designated in the notice, and (2) the order
is entered, or the ruling is made, before the appellate court accepts review.
2
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
This allows a defendant to avoid a “trap for the unwary . . . that a failure to appeal an
appealable order could prevent its review upon appeal from a final judgment.” Adkins v.
Alum. Co. of Am., 110 Wn.2d 128, 134, 750 P.2d 1257, 756 P.2d 142 (1988).
In Adkins, the first trial resulted in a favorable verdict for the plaintiff, but the
court granted a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second trial resulted in a defense
verdict, from which the plaintiff appealed. One of the issues on appeal was whether the
appellate court should review the ruling granting the mistrial. The Adkins court
concluded that the motion for mistrial was reviewable, reasoning:
The requirements of RAP 2.4(b) are satisfied here. The second trial
would not have occurred absent the trial court’s decision granting the
motion for a mistrial; thus the decision prejudicially affected the final
decision which was designated in the notice of appeal. Obviously the trial
court’s action granting the mistrial occurred before the Court of Appeals
accepted review.
Id. at 134-35.
Our Supreme Court discussed RAP 2.4(b) in Franz v. Lance, 119 Wn.2d 780, 781,
836 P.2d 832 (1992). There, the trial court orally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the
trespass claim and stated it was inclined to award attorney fees.1 In October 1990, the
1
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Franz was per curiam and omitted most of the
underlying facts. We obtain the facts for this paragraph from the subsequent unpublished
case of Franz v. Lance, noted at 72 Wn. App. 1042, 1994 WL 16180036.
3
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
trial court entered its findings and conclusions, together with its judgment quieting title
and awarding damages. It reserved ruling on attorney fees for a later time. Two months
later, the trial court issued a letter opinion awarding over $14,000 in attorney fees and
costs. Supplemental findings and conclusions were entered in February 1991, and a
supplemental judgment was entered in June 1991. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
Lances’ January 2, 1991 appeal of the October 1990 judgment as untimely. The Lances
sought and received discretionary review.
The Supreme Court in Franz reversed and directed the Court of Appeals to review
the October 1990 judgment. Citing the language of RAP 2.4(b), the Franz court held that
the trial court’s judgment on the merits “prejudicially affected its subsequent award.”
Franz, 119 Wn.2d at 782. The court concluded:
We hold the trial court’s October 29, 1990, judgment on the merits
of the quiet title and trespass issues prejudicially affected its subsequent
award of attorney fees and costs. That award was imposed against the
Lances as a sanction under CR 11 and RCW 4.84.185 for filing a baseless
answer to the Franzes’ complaint and for filing a frivolous counterclaim.
The award therefore must stand or fall based on the findings and
conclusions the trial court entered in support of the 1990 judgment. Under
the reasoning in [prior cases], the Franzes’ timely notice of appeal from the
award of sanctions should enable them to obtain review of the underlying
judgment.
Id.4
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
Here, the question is whether the first prong of RAP 2.4(b) is satisfied. In other
words, does the October 2018 judgment and sentence prejudicially affect the June 2019
order revoking the DOSA sentence?
In Adkins, the Supreme Court held that the order granting mistrial prejudicially
affected the second trial, because the second trial “would not have occurred absent” the
earlier decision. 110 Wn.2d at 134. Applying this standard here, the judgment imposing
the DOSA sentence prejudicially affected the order revoking the DOSA sentence. This is
because the order revoking the DOSA sentence could not have occurred absent the DOSA
sentence.
In Franz, the Supreme Court held that the findings and conclusions in the original
judgment prejudicially affected the sanctions award because the sanctions award “must
stand or fall” based on the findings and conclusions the trial court entered in the original
judgment. 119 Wn.2d at 782. Applying this standard here, the judgment imposing the
DOSA sentence did not prejudicially affect the order revoking the DOSA sentence. This
is because the order revoking the DOSA sentence does not stand or fall on the sentence.
Rather, it stands or falls on whether Harris complied with the conditions of his DOSA
sentence.
5
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
So which standard do we apply? In Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells
Prairie Community Council, 146 Wn.2d 370, 46 P.3d 789 (2002), the court denied that
the rule in Franz narrowed the rule in Adkins. Id. at 380. The court explained, the Franz
“holding is a reiteration of the Adkins court’s recognition that the order appealed from
would not have happened but for the first order.” Id. We are constrained to apply
Adkins’s “but for” rule here and conclude that review of Harris’s sentence is appropriate.2
COMMUNITY CUSTODY CONDITIONS
Harris contends the trial court erred by imposing the community custody condition
prohibiting him from having contact with Department of Corrections (DOC) identified
drug offenders. The State rightly points out that this issue is not preserved for appeal.
However, because it is simpler to discuss why Harris’s contention is incorrect rather than
why this was not a manifest error, we exercise our discretion in reviewing this issue.
This court reviews challenges to community custody conditions for abuse of
discretion and will reverse only when they are manifestly unreasonable. State v.
Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 791-92, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010). A community custody
2
Harris’s RAP 2.4(b) scope of review argument was raised in reply to the State’s
RAP 5.2(a) timeliness argument. The State did not have an opportunity to address
RAP 2.4(b). Because we are affirming (except on an issue conceded by the State), we did
not ask the State to provide additional briefing. The State is invited to address
RAP 2.4(b) in a reconsideration motion if it believes we have erred on this issue.
6
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
condition is vague if it does not give fair warning of the prohibited conduct to the
defendant. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 752-53, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). “If ‘persons of
ordinary intelligence can understand what the [condition] proscribes, notwithstanding
some possible areas of disagreement, the [condition] is sufficiently definite.’” Id. at 754(quoting City of Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 179, 795 P.2d 693 (1990)).
A defendant’s right to association may be restricted if it is reasonably necessary to
accomplish the essential needs of public order. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37-38, 846
P.2d 1365 (1993). This includes restricting a defendant from contact with known drug
offenders in order to curb recurring use of illegal drugs. State v. Hearn, 131 Wn. App.
601, 609, 128 P.3d 139 (2006).
This court, in Hearn, already decided that prohibiting a defendant from contact
with “known drug offenders” is a constitutional custody condition. Id. The inclusion of
“DOC [identified] drug offenders” does not change this. Clerk’s Papers at 92. Those
offenders who the DOC has identified as drug offenders is a list the offender is capable of
obtaining, and a person of ordinary intelligence can understand this prohibition is from
contact with anyone on this list.
7
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (LFOs)
Harris contends the trial court erred by imposing a fee for his urinalysis tests and
for the supervision costs. He also contends the trial court erred by imposing interest on
his LFOs. We agree in part.
Supervision costs of community custody are discretionary and are subject to the
same inquiry regarding a defendant’s ability to pay as other discretionary LFOs. State v.
Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d 388, 396 n.3, 429 P.3d 1116 (2018), review denied, 193
Wn.2d 1007, 443 P.3d 800 (2019). Here, the trial court found that Harris was indigent
and waived other discretionary LFOs. Consistent with this, it should have waived the
costs of community custody supervision as well.
However, the State contends these costs are moot because he is no longer being
required to pay the costs and it is unclear that he paid the fees at any point in the past. We
agree with the State. An issue is moot when a court is no longer able to grant effective
relief. In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983).
Harris argues if this court strikes the LFOs, he would be entitled to reimbursement
for costs he already paid. This is not the case. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill
1783, 65th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2018), which became effective June 7, 2018, prohibits
trial courts from imposing discretionary legal financial obligations on defendants who are
8
No. 36951-0-III; No. 36952-8-III
State v. Harris
indigent at the time of sentencing. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 6(3); State v. Ramirez, 191
Wn.2d 732, 738-39, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). However, this same bill included a provision
stating that "[n]othing in this act requires the courts to refund or reimburse amounts
previously paid towards legal financial obligations or interest on legal financial
obligations." LA ws OF 2018, ch. 269, § 20.
Because Harris is not entitled to reimbursement of any fees he may have paid, this
court cannot grant effective relief and this issue is moot.
Moving on to Harris' s second argument, LFOs other than restitution do not accrue
interest. RCW 3.50.100(4)(b). Therefore, we agree that the court erred by imposing
interest on the LFOs.
Affirmed, but remanded to strike interest.
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.
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
WE CONCUR:
~ 1c0
Korsmo, A. C .J.
(result only) 3
Fearin~t
:Jr
9