Pimentel v. Judges of the King Cnty. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 18 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 98154-0,98154-0 |
| Citation | 482 P.3d 906 |
| Parties | Julian PIMENTEL, Petitioner, v. The JUDGES OF the KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, and Dan Satterberg, King County Prosecuting Attorney, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
David Allen, Todd Maybrown, Cooper David Offenbecher, Allen Hansen Maybrown & Offenbecher, PS, 600 University St. Ste. 3020, Seattle, WA, 98101-4105, Danielle Smith, Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, 200 W. Thomas St. Ste. 500, Seattle, WA, 98119-4296, for Petitioner(s).
Ann Marie Summers, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave. Ste. W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, Steven Walter Fogg, Timothy Ashley Bradshaw, Victoria Elizabeth Ainsworth, Corr Cronin LLP, 1001 4th Ave. Ste. 3900, Seattle, WA, 98154-1051, for Respondent(s).
Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc. of Prosecuting Atty., 206 10th Ave. Se., Olympia, WA, 98501-1311, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa. Assoc. of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Mark Bruns Middaugh, Attorney at Law, 600 University St. Ste. 3020, Seattle, WA, 98101-4105, Alexandria Marie Hohman, The Washington Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Wa. Assoc. Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Nancy Lynn Talner, Antoinette M. Davis, Jaime Michelle Hawk, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Po Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Aclu of Washington.
David Ventura Montes, Attorney at Law, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 250, Seattle, WA, 98104-1765, La Rond Baker, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1703, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of King County Dept. of Public Defense.
¶ 1 In King County, individuals subject to a warrantless arrest typically first appear before a district court judge to determine probable cause and set bail or release on personal recognizance (PR). Whatever the district court does, the superior court obtains jurisdiction once an information is filed by the county prosecutor. Then, without notice to the defendant, a superior court judge may make a new decision under CrR 3.2 to set bail or increase the bail previously set by the district court.
¶ 2 Petitioner Julian Pimentel asks us to prohibit this practice by granting extraordinary relief by way of a writ of prohibition or mandamus against the King County Superior Court Judges (Judges) and the King County Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecutor). In the alternative, Pimentel seeks a declaratory judgment. While we are sympathetic to Pimentel's concerns, this original action for extraordinary writs is the wrong vehicle to provide the relief sought. Pimentel's underlying criminal case, for which he was originally subject to a bail increase without prior notice, was dismissed over one year prior to the filing of this petition. Therefore, we dismiss the petition as moot and decline to reach the issue of whether a county prosecutor qualifies as a state officer for purposes of article IV, section 4 of our state constitution. We also dismiss Pimentel's alternative request for declaratory relief for lack of original jurisdiction.
¶ 3 Pimentel self-surrendered to the Federal Way Police Department (FWPD) on April 17, 2018, following allegations that he committed indecent liberties against 15 year old A.R.W. two months prior. Agreed Report of Proceedings (ARP) at 6, 11. Pimentel appeared before King County District Court Judge Charles Delaurenti the next day. Pimentel was represented by defense counsel, who requested release on PR, noting Pimentel was "two months over 18," "lives with his father," and "has a stable address." ARP at 4. The Prosecutor asked the court to set bail in the sum of $150,000 to "ensure the safety of the community." ARP at 3-4. Judge Delaurenti noted, "The [Prosecutor's] recommendation for bond is not unreasonable," but he also took into account that the investigating FWPD detective did not object to Pimentel being released on PR. ARP at 8. Judge Delaurenti agreed to release Pimentel on PR and noted Pimentel was due to reappear before the district court the following day.
¶ 4 On April 19, less than half an hour before Pimentel was set to reappear, the Prosecutor formally charged Pimentel in King County Superior Court with assault in the second degree with sexual motivation. The Prosecutor acknowledged their bail request of $150,000 was denied at the first appearance and that Pimentel was released on PR. Nevertheless, the Prosecutor requested the Superior Court set bail at $50,000 given that the district court "was unaware that there were statements from friends that were with the victim and the defendant that day" and that those statements provided new information "regarding the victim's impairment." ARP at 17. King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce made a determination of probable cause for assault in the second degree, issued an arrest warrant, and set bail at $50,000.
¶ 5 Pimentel states the Prosecutor's request for bail was granted by the superior court ex parte, "without any notice to the defendant or his attorney and without any opportunity ... to appear or to respond." ARP at 42. Due to an oversight, Pimentel was not arrested when he returned for his second appearance before the district court. Instead, when defense counsel learned of the bail increase after calling the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, he immediately notified Pimentel. Pimentel posted bond that day (which required paying an 8% premium of $4,000) in order to avoid being arrested prior to his arraignment. Pimentel appeared at his arraignment on May 3, 2018. After various proceedings, the Prosecutor dismissed his case in January 2019 "[i]n the interests of justice and based upon information not available at the time of filing."1 ARP at 36. In February 2020, Pimentel filed this original action in our court, seeking either a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a declaratory judgment. Our commissioner issued a ruling to retain this original action. We accepted amici briefs from the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the King County Department of Public Defense, the Washington Defender Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (WACDL et al.), as well as from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
¶ 6 Pimentel and supporting amici raise serious concerns about the negative impacts of the King County bail practice, particularly on indigent defendants. See Pet'r’s Opening Br. at 14-17; WACDL et al. Amici Br. at 6-10. The question before us is whether an original action seeking a writ of prohibition or mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for relief in this case. Our ability to issue either writ stems from our state constitution, which provides:
The supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus, and quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings ....The supreme court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari and all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction.
¶ 7 A writ of prohibition is a drastic measure. Kreidler v. Eikenberry , 111 Wash.2d 828, 838, 766 P.2d 438 (1989). The writ will not issue "to prevent the commission of mere error, nor to take the place of an appeal." State ex rel. N.Y. Cas. Co. v. Superior Court , 31 Wash.2d 834, 838-39, 199 P.2d 581 (1948). Similarly, a writ of mandamus "is an extraordinary remedy appropriate only where a state official is under a mandatory ministerial duty to perform an act required by law as part of that official's duties." Freeman v. Gregoire , 171 Wash.2d 316, 323, 256 P.3d 264 (2011) (citing Cmty. Care Coal. of Wash. v. Reed , 165 Wash.2d 606, 614, 200 P.3d 701 (2009) ). Issuance of either writ is discretionary. See Walker v. Munro , 124 Wash.2d 402, 407, 879 P.2d 920 (1994) (); see also Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 , 177 Wash.2d 718, 730, 305 P.3d 1079 (2013) ().
¶ 8 Pimentel's petition for an extraordinary writ of prohibition or mandamus fails at the outset because his case became moot well before the filing of the present petition. Beyond the problem of mootness, there are a number of adequate, alternative remedies available to Pimentel that demonstrate an extraordinary writ is not warranted.
¶ 9 Pimentel did not initiate his petition until approximately one year after the superior court dismissed his criminal case, and he does not dispute that this case is moot. He argues we should nevertheless entertain his petition under one of our mootness exceptions, specifically because the issue presented is of continuing and substantial public interest. But Pimentel cites no instance in which this court has granted an extraordinary writ of prohibition in a moot case.
¶ 10 Because the criminal charges against Pimentel were dismissed over a year prior to the filing of this original action, there is no case pending below and, thus, nothing for us to prohibit. We have previously declined to issue the writ where the act sought to be prohibited had already occurred. See, e.g. , State ex rel. Nooksack River Boom Co. v. Superior Court , 2 Wash. 9, 14, 25 P. 1007 (1891) (); State ex rel....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fox v. City of Bellingham
-
Irwin Law Firm Inc. v. Ferry Cnty. Treasurer Rochelle Rodak (In re Tax Foreclosure Sale Surplus of 58 Rosehaven Circle Republic Wash. (Ferry Cnty.) Parcel No. 23824210001000)
...is unpersuasive. A remedy is not inadequate merely because it is attended with delay, expense, annoyance, or even some hardship. Pimentel, 197 Wn.2d at 376; Burrowes v. Killian, 195 Wn.2d 350, 356, 459 P.3d 1082 (2020). We affirm the trial court's denial of the petitioners' motion to amend.......