State v. Stevens County Dist. Court Judge

rruEv
IN CLERKS OPFICE \
This opinion was
_ filed ^record
CUPRESS COURT.SIXTE OF WASHNSrOM
at^AAvon ^/9
I DATE DEC I ? 701^
-t-arA Iaaaa^. di Susan L. Carlson
GHIEFJUSnCE
Supreme Court Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent, No. 97071-8
V. En Banc
STEVENS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE,
Filed DEC 1 2 2019
Petitioner.
OWENS,J. — This case asks us to determine whether a superior court may
conduct preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors
originally filed in district court. Because our court rules authorize the superior court
to conduct these hearings regardless of which court files these misdemeanors and
because there are no statutory or constitutional restrictions on this authority, we hold a
superior court may conduct preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and
gross misdemeanors that are originally filed in district court. Accordingly, we affirm
the Court of Appeals'judgment and remand the case to the Stevens County Superior
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the Stevens County District Court to accept
and file cases from the superior court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL fflSTORY
On January 29, 2018, the Stevens County Superior Court(Superior Court)
ordered all preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors(Misdemeanors)to be heard by the Superior Court, including cases
filed in the Stevens County District Court(District Court). The Superior Court
asserted this order was necessary to prevent scheduling conflicts between the courts,
court clerks, prosecutors, defense counsel, and the county jail.
On February 2, 2018, District Court Judge Gina Tveit ordered the District
Court staff not to file any orders in a District Court case unless those orders had been
signed by a District Court judge—effectively barring any cases signed by a Superior
Courtjudge under the January 29 order.
On February 8, 2018, the State filed a writ of mandamus with the Superior
Court directing the District Court to permit filing of orders signed by Superior Court
judges. The Superior Court subsequently ordered the writ against the District Court.
On March 7, 2018, a visiting judge in the Superior Court held the District Court
was not required to recognize the Superior Court's orders in cases originally filed in
the District Court, reasoning that neither party cited to any case law or statute granting
the Superior Court the authority to sign orders for these cases absent the District
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
Court's authorization. The visiting judge also raised and dismissed the priority of
action rule, which states that "the court which first gains jurisdiction of a cause retains
the exclusive authority to deal with the action until the controversy is resolved."
Sherwin v. Arveson, 96 Wash. 2d 77, 80,633 P.2d 1335 (1981).
The State appealed the visiting judge's decision. The Court of Appeals,
Division Three, reversed and held the District Court's refusal of Superior Court cases
was legally erroneous. State v. Stevens County Dist. Court Judge,1 Wn. App. 2d 927,
936,436 P.3d 430(2019). However, in its reasoning, the Court of Appeals stated a
preliminary appearance hearing is "distinct from the criminal trial process" and,thus,
the priority of action rule does not apply because a preliminary appearance hearing is
not a '"critical stage'" of proceedings. Id. at 930, 935. The District Court appealed
the Court of Appeals' decision, and we subsequently granted review. State v. Stevens
County Dist. Court Judge, 193 Wash. 2d 1018 (2019).
ISSUES
1. Does the priority of action rule apply when a superior court conducts the
preliminary appearance hearing for a case that was originally filed in a distriet court?
2. May a superior court conduct preliminary appearance hearings and enter
related orders in all county misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, even when a
charge has been filed in the county's district court and the district court assumed
exclusive jurisdiction over the trial process?
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Writs of mandamus are subject to two separate standards of review." Cost
Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Lakewood, 178 Wn.2d 635,648,310 P.3d 804(2013). Ifthe
issue raised is "whether a statute prescribes a duty that will support issuance of a
writ," then our review is de novo. Id. at 649. Here, the issue is whether the Superior
Court may require the District Court to file Misdemeanors after the Superior Court
conducts preliminary appearance hearings for these Misdemeanors. Therefore, the
issue is whether the District Court has the duty to accept these cases, so we review the
Superior Court's writ de novo.
ANALYSIS
1. The Priority ofAction Rule Applies When the Same Case Is Filed in Separate
Courts—Not When the Proceedingsfor One Case Are Divided between Courts
The priority of action rule states that "the court which first gains jurisdiction of
a cause retains the exclusive authority to deal with the action until the controversy is
resolved." Sherwin, 96 Wash. 2d at 80. The rule applies "only if the two cases involved
are identical as to (1)subject matter;(2) parties; and (3)relief." City ofYakima v. Int'l
Ass'n ofFire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655,675, 818 P.2d 1076(1991)(citing Sherwin, 96
Wash. 2d at 80). The rule is intended "to prevent unseemly, expensive, and dangerous
conflicts ofjurisdiction and of process." Sherwin, 96 Wash. 2d at 80 (citing In re
Freitas, 53 Wash. 2d 722, 336 P.2d 865 (1959)).
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
We apply the priority of action rule when there are multiple filings of the same
case. See State v. Cummings, 87 Wn.2d 612,612, 555 P.2d 835 (1976)(charges were
filed in a district court followed by an information filed in a superior court); see also
State ex rel. Harger v. Chapman, 131 Wash. 581, 582, 230 P. 833(1924)(a charge
was filed in district court, and an information for the same case was subsequently filed
in the superior court). We have never addressed whether the rule applies when the
preliminary appearance hearing for one case is held in superior court, but the case
itself was filed in district court.
For the priority of action rule to apply, the cases must be identical "such that a
decision ofthe controversy by one tribunal would, as res judicata, bar further
proceedings in the other tribunal." Fire Fighters, 117 Wash. 2d at 675. "The threshold
requirement of res judicata is a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit." Hisle v.
ToddPac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wash. 2d 853, 865, 93 P.3d 108 (2004). Here, res
judicata does not apply because there is no final judgment on the merits at a
preliminary appearance hearing. Therefore, since no decision made at a preliminary
appearance hearing bars further proceedings for that case under res judicata, the
priority of action rule does not apply.
In contrast, the Court of Appeals reasoned the rule does not apply because a
preliminary appearance hearing has "no shared identity" with the rest of a criminal
trial and is not considered a '"critical stage'" of proceedings. Dist. Court Judge,1
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
Wn. App. 2d at 935. But this reasoning improperly conflates two legal doctrines
because discussions of"critical stages'" of proceedings are traditionally exclusive to
whether a defendant has the right to assistance of counsel. See State v.
Everybodytalksabout, 161 Wash. 2d 702, 708, 166 P.3d 693(2007)(quoting State v.
Tinkham,74 Wn. App. 102, 109, 871 P.2d 1127(1994)). Therefore, while we
conclude the priority of action rule does not apply in this case, we reject the Court of
Appeals' reasoning.
2. Court Rules andRCW 3.66.060 Authorize the Superior Court To Conduct
Preliminary Appearance Hearingsfor Misdemeanors Filed in District Court
A. CrR 3.2.1(d)(1) and CrRLJ3.2.1(d)(1) Authorize the Superior Court To
Conduct Preliminary Appearancesfor District Court Misdemeanors
In Washington,"[t]he superior court shall have original jurisdiction in . . . all
cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by law." CONST, art. IV, § 6.
However, the legislature may prescribe by law the jurisdiction of any inferior courts,
including district courts. CONST, art. IV,§ 12; RCW 3.02.010; RCW 3.30.015.'
Thus, by enacted legislation, the District Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the
Superior Court over all Misdemeanors in Stevens County. RCW 3.66.060(1)
(Concurrent Jurisdiction Statute).
'In the Revised Code of Washington, district courts and district court judges are referred to as
"justice courts or justice ofthe peace courts" and "justices of the peace" respectively. RCW
3.30.015.
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
Under the courts' concurrentjurisdiction, both must abide by state court rules.
See Banowsky v. Baekstrom, 193 Wash. 2d 724, 740,445 P.3d 543(2019)(stating the
power behind article IV ofthe state constitution is to '"govern court procedures,'" and
"[t]his court exercises that power in part by promulgating rules"(quoting City of
Fircrest v. Jensen, 158 Wash. 2d 384, 394, 143 P.3d 776(2006)(plurality opinion))).
"Our rules have the force of law," and therefore the District Court and the Superior
Court may conduct any actions and proceedings that comply with court rules. Id. at
741.
Relevant here, CrR 3.2.1(d)(1) states, "Unless a defendant has appeared or will
appear before a court of limited jurisdiction for a preliminary appearance .. ., any
defendant. . . shall be brought before the superior court," Further, CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1)
states,''Unless an accused has appeared or will appear before the superior courtfor
a preliminary appearance, any accused detained in jail must be brought before a court
of limited jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.) In other words, district courts shall
conduct preliminary appearance hearings—but not if the superior court in their
respective counties will be conducting these hearings. These court rules do not
require that the preliminary appearance hearing occur in the court where the case was
originally filed.
Furthermore, our court rules "shall be construed to secure simplicity in
procedure, fairness in administration, effective justice, and the elimination of
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
unjustifiable expense and delay." CrR 1.2; CrRLJ 1.2. Here, the Superior Court
asserted there were conflicts between court bodies in processing Misdemeanors.
Thus, the Superior Court's reason to take over all preliminary appearances for both
courts—^to eliminate "unjustifiable delay"—was proper under court rules.
Regardless if a preliminary appearance hearing for a District Court case occurs
in the Superior Court or the District Court, there is no court rule violation. Therefore,
the Superior Court may properly conduct preliminary appearance hearings for
Misdemeanors originally filed with the District Court.
B. RCW 3.66.060 Does Not Limit the Superior Court's Authority To Conduct
Preliminary Appearancesfor District Court Misdemeanors
We review issues of statutory construction de novo. State v. Evans, 177 Wash. 2d
186, 191, 298 P.3d 724(2013)(citing State v. Bradshaw, 152 Wash. 2d 528, 531, 98
P.3d 1190 (2004)). "The purpose of statutory interpretation is 'to determine and give
effect to the intent ofthe legislature.'" Id. at 192(quoting State v. Sweany, 174
Wash. 2d 909, 914, 281 P.3d 305 (2012)). When possible, we find the legislature's
intent "solely from the plain language" of the statute,"considering the text ofthe
provision . . .,the context ofthe statute in which the provision is found, related
provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole." Id. (citing State v. Ervin, 169
Wash. 2d 815, 820, 239 P.3d 354 (2010)).
Based on its plain language, RCW 3.66.060 does not exclude the Superior
Court from conducting preliminary appearances for District Court cases. "The district
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
court shall have jurisdiction ... to sit as a committing magistrate and conduct
preliminary hearings in cases provided by law." RCW 3.66.060(2). The importance
behind this language is what is missing from this provision— jurisdiction."
While we have '"a long history of restraint in compensating for legislative
omissions,'" we have pulled back from this rule and stated we may add to a statute if
'"it is imperatively required to make it a rational statute.'" In re Postsentence Review
ofLeach, 161 Wash. 2d 180, 186, 163 P.3d 782(2007)(internal quotation marks
omitted)(quoting State v. Taylor, 97 Wash. 2d 724, 728, 729,649 P.2d 633 (1982)).
Whenever the legislature has provided courts with exclusive jurisdiction, the
legislature has explicitly stated these exclusive jurisdictions. See RCW 13.38.060(1)
("An Indian tribe shall have exc/w^/ve jurisdiction over any child custody proceeding
involving an Indian ehild."(emphasis added)); see also RCW 26.21A.150(1)("A
tribunal. . . issuing a spousal support order .. . has eontinuing, exclusive jurisdiction
to modify the ... order."(emphasis added)); RCW 37.08.200 ("Exc/w.sfre jurisdiction
shall be ... ceded to the United States over . . . Rainier National Park."(emphasis
added)). And article IV, section 6 ofthe Washington Constitution states that superior
courts retain original jurisdiction over all proceedings "in which jurisdiction shall not
have been by law vested exclusively in some other court." (Emphasis added.)
Here, the District Court's authority to conduct preliminary appearance hearings
is not "exclusive" under the Concurrent Jurisdiction Statute. Furthermore, this
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
interpretation is required '"to make[RCW 3.66.060] a rational statute'" because
interpreting the statute as granting the District Court "exclusive jurisdiction" over
preliminary appearance hearings would contradict court rules and would "trench upon
the jurisdiction of superior ... courts." Leach, 161 Wash. 2d at 186; CONST, art. IV,
§ 10; see CrR 3.2.1(d)(1); see also CrRLJ 3.2.1(d)(1). Therefore, RCW 3.66.060 does
not restrict the Superior Court's authority in conducting preliminary appearances for
District Court Misdemeanors.
C. The Superior Court May Issue a Writ ofMandamus against the District
Court Because the District Court's Refusal ofSuperior Court Cases Is
Legally Erroneous
Superior courts may issue writs of mandamus against district courts, even
though they are an extraordinary remedy. CONST, art. IV, § 6; RCW 7.16.160;
Walker v. Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402,424, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). Furthermore,"[t]he writ
must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law." RCW 7.16.170. We uphold writs when a district court
enters an order that is "erroneous in the law, particularly where the error is not
correctable through an appeal." City ofKirkland v. Ellis, 82 Wash. App. 819, 829, 920
P.2d 206(1996)(citing State ex rel. W. Stevedore Co. v. Jones, 145 Wash. 258, 261-
62, 259 P. 718(1927)).
First, neither party argues whether there are other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedies available in lieu ofthe Superior Court issuing a writ of mandamus against
10
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
the District Court; thus, whether there are other remedies available is not an issue
before us in this case. Second, the District Court's refusal of Misdemeanors from the
Superior Court is legally erroneous since the Superior Court has the authority to
conduct these cases' preliminary appearances. Therefore, the Superior Court's writ of
mandamus against the District Court was proper, and the District Court must accept
Misdemeanors from the Superior Court.
CONCLUSION
We hold the Superior Court may preside over preliminary appearance hearings
for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors originally filed in the District Court.
Court rules authorize the Superior Court to preside over these hearings regardless of
whether the case was originally filed in the Superior Court or the District Court.
Furthermore, RCW 3.66.060 does not restrict the Superior Court's authority to preside
over these hearings. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals'judgment and
remand the case to the Stevens County Superior Court to issue a writ of mandamus
against the Stevens County District Court to accept cases from the Superior Court.
11
State of Washington v. Stevens County District Court Judge
No. 97071-8
WE CONCUR:
^NaAsA~x-> A lAle?.
X
12