In re Detention of Martin

• Decision Date: 01 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 78963-1.,78963-1.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of the DETENTION OF Sheldon MARTIN, Petitioner.

182 P.3d 951

163 Wash.2d 501

In the Matter of the DETENTION OF Sheldon MARTIN, Petitioner.

No. 78963-1.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued September 25, 2007.

Decided May 1, 2008.

Joseph Orry-Leroy Baker, Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins, Auburn, WA, for Petitioner.

Melanie Tratnik, Attorney Generals Office/CJ Division, Malcolm Ross, Attorney General of Washington Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

SANDERS, J.

¶ 1 The State committed Sheldon Martin as a sexually violent predator based on two sexually violent offenses he committed in Oregon. Washington's sexually violent predator law (chapter 71.09 RCW) includes out-of-state convictions of sexually violent offenses as a basis for a commitment petition but authorizes only a specific prosecutor to file the petition: "the prosecuting attorney of the county where the person was convicted or charged or the attorney general if requested by the prosecuting attorney. . . ."¹ The superior court denied Martin's motion to dismiss the petition for want of statutory authorization. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed the superior court, holding the language in the statute was venue language permitting a motion to change venue, not a motion to dismiss. We hold the language in the statute unambiguously authorizes a specific prosecutor to initiate commitment proceedings. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and grant Martin's motion to dismiss the State's petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 The material facts are undisputed. On March 3, 1992, Martin was convicted in Vancouver, Washington of burglary in the second degree with sexual motivation and indecent exposure, which are not sexually violent offenses under Washington's sexually violent predator law. Pending sentencing Martin was released on bail and arrested on April 8, 1992 in Portland, Oregon. Martin pleaded guilty in Oregon to kidnapping in the second degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, two sexually violent offenses. He was sentenced to 120 months. Martin was returned to Washington for sentencing; he was sentenced to 30 months to be served consecutively after his Oregon sentence.

¶ 3 When Martin neared the end of his sentence in Washington, the End of Sentence Review Committee of the Community Protection Unit of the Washington Department of Corrections determined Martin met the statutory definition of a sexually violent predator and recommended referring Martin to the Clark County prosecutor for commitment proceedings. However, the community protection unit instead referred the matter to the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. On March 4, 2003, the attorney general's office, at the request of the Thurston County prosecutor, filed the commitment petition in Thurston County Superior Court.

¶ 4 The trial court denied Martin's motion to dismiss the petition, ruling RCW 71.09.030 did not limit a prosecutor's authority to seek commitment to those counties where the sexually violent offense occurred. Accordingly, the trial court determined any prosecutor can file a commitment petition when the basis of the petition is an out-of-state conviction for a sexually violent offense. The Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order holding the language in RCW 71.09.030 referring to the "county where the person was convicted or charged" was "only venue language" requiring a motion to change venue, not a motion to dismiss. In re Det. of Martin, 133 Wash.App. 450, 454-55, 136 P.3d 789 (2006).

¶ 5 We granted review, In re Det. of Martin, 160 Wash.2d 1009, 160 P.3d 54 (2007), and now reverse the Court of Appeals, holding RCW 71.09.030 unambiguously authorizes only a specific county prosecutor to file, or request the attorney general to file, the commitment petition. The Thurston County prosecutor could not file this commitment petition, or request the attorney general's office to file it, because the Thurston County prosecutor never convicted or charged Martin with an offense. Which prosecutor could appropriately take such an action we do not decide.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo. W. Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 140 Wash.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000). The primary objective of any statutory construction inquiry is "to ascertain and carry out the intent of the Legislature." Rozner v. City of Bellevue, 116 Wash.2d 342, 347, 804 P.2d 24 (1991).

ANALYSIS

¶ 7 The question presented is whether RCW 71.09.030 authorizes the Thurston County prosecutor to commence a sexually violent predator commitment proceeding if the Thurston County prosecutor never convicted or charged the subject of the proceeding with an offense.

¶ 8 RCW 71.09.025 and RCW 71.09.030 establish the mandatory and exclusive procedure whereby a prosecuting attorney commences a sexually violent predator commitment proceeding.

¶ 9 First, the "agency with jurisdiction"² determines whether the person satisfies the statutory criteria of a sexually violent predator.³ If so, the agency refers the matter to the "prosecuting attorney of the county where that person was charged," providing the prosecutor with "all relevant information."⁴ If the agency fails to refer the matter, however, the prosecuting attorney of the county where that person was charged remains authorized to file the commitment petition. In re Det. of Aqui, 84 Wash.App. 88, 96, 929 P.2d 436 (1996).

¶ 10 The statute then enumerates five classes of people subject to commitment as a sexually violent predator:

(1) A person who at any time previously has been convicted of a sexually violent offense is about to be released from total confinement . . .; (2) a person found to have committed a sexually violent offense as a juvenile is about to be released from total confinement . . .; (3) a person who has been charged with a sexually violent offense and who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial is about to be released, or has been released . . .; (4) a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a sexually violent offense is about to be released, or has been released . . .; or (5) a person who at any time previously has been convicted of a sexually violent offense and has since been released from total confinement and has committed a recent overt act; and it appears that the person may be a sexually violent predator. . . .

RCW 71.09.030.

¶ 11 Once a person falls within one of these five classes of people, "the prosecuting attorney of the county where the person was convicted or charged or the attorney general if requested by the prosecuting attorney may file a petition alleging that the person is a `sexually violent predator'. . . ." Id. (emphasis added).

¶ 12 When interpreting a statute we first look to its plain language. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007). If the plain language is subject to only one interpretation, our inquiry is at an end. Id. If after analyzing the plain language, the statute remains subject to multiple interpretations, it is ambiguous. Burton v. Lehman, 153 Wash.2d 416, 423, 103 P.3d 1230 (2005). However, a statute is not ambiguous if multiple interpretations of it are conceivable. W. Telepage, Inc., 140 Wash.2d at 608, 998 P.2d 884. In such circumstances the statute is possibly unclear in its application to a specific situation, but it is not ambiguous because its language conveys a single meaning. See Lawrence M. Solan, Law, Language, and Lenity, 40 WM. & MARY L.REV. 57, 62-63, 78-79 (1998-99).

¶ 13 Here, the phrase "the prosecuting attorney of the county where the person was convicted or charged or the attorney general if requested by the prosecuting attorney"⁵ cannot be interpreted to mean anything but exactly what it says. It exclusively authorizes a specific county prosecutor to commence the proceedings. This language is not ambiguous, and we assume the legislature means exactly what it says. W. Telepage, Inc., 140 Wash.2d at 609, 998 P.2d 884.

¶ 14 Therefore, we must derive the statute's meaning from the words of the statute itself. State v. Tili, 139 Wash.2d 107, 115, 985 P.2d 365 (1999). We strictly construe statutes curtailing civil liberties to their terms. In re Det. of Swanson, 115 Wash.2d 21, 31, 804 P.2d 1 (1990); see also In re Det. of Marshall, 156 Wash.2d 150, 164, 125 P.3d 111 (2005) (Chambers, J., dissenting) ("It is our solemn duty to ensure that the State's power to incarcerate is exercised only under the most stringent of standards."). With this in mind we turn to the question of whether the statute permits the Thurston County prosecutor to initiate this commitment proceeding.

a. RCW 71.09.030 does not permit the Thurston County prosecutor to commence this commitment proceeding

¶ 15 The sexually violent predator statute defines a "`[s]exually violent offense'" to include out-of-state convictions for certain offenses;⁶ however, the statute authorizes only the prosecutor who convicted or charged the subject of the petition to commence the commitment proceeding.⁷ "The authority of the prosecuting attorney to appear in a particular proceeding is . . . found in the statute." Bates v. Sch. Dist. No. 10, 45 Wash. 498, 501, 88 P. 944 (1907).

¶ 16 The State and dissent agree the statute clearly refers to the prosecutor who convicted or charged the subject of the petition to commence the proceeding. However, the State and the dissent construct a legislative intent from the definition of a "sexually violent offense" regarding commitment proceedings based on out-of-state convictions of sexually violent offenses; the legislature must have intended to authorize the Thurston County (or every county) prosecutor to commence the proceedings to avoid the result of identifying the problem without providing a remedy.

¶ 17 The legislature, however, wrote the statute in an unambiguous manner and we do not have the power to rewrite it "even if we believe the legislature intended something...