State ex rel. Schillberg v. Cascade Dist. Court

• Decision Date: 04 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 46615,46615
• Citation: 94 Wn.2d 772,621 P.2d 115
• Parties: The STATE of Washington ex rel. Robert E. SCHILLBERG, Respondent, v. CASCADE DISTRICT COURT, Snohomish County, Jay F. Wisman, Judge of the Cascade District Court, Charles E. Cabe, Petitioners.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 772

94 Wn.2d 772

621 P.2d 115

The STATE of Washington ex rel. Robert E. SCHILLBERG, Respondent, v. CASCADE DISTRICT COURT, Snohomish County, Jay F. Wisman Judge of the Cascade District Court, Charles E Cabe, Petitioners.

No. 46615.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Dec. 4, 1980.

Tom P. Conom, Lynnwood, for petitioners.

Russ Juckett, Snohomish County Prosecutor, Hugh W. Hawkins, Jr., Seth Dawson, Deputy Pros. Attys., Everett, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Petitioner Charles E. Cabe challenges a Court of Appeals decision which affirmed an order issued in the Snohomish County Superior Court. The order appealed from vacated the Cascade District Court's order of deferred prosecution conditioned on petitioner's successful completion of an alcohol treatment program. State ex rel. Schillberg v. Cascade Dist. Court, 24 Wash.App. 531, 604 P.2d 491 (1979). We reverse the Court of Appeals.

On June 3, 1977, petitioner was arrested and cited by a state trooper for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The State filed a complaint in Cascade District Court, and at the arraignment on July 5, 1977, petitioner's counsel filed a notice of appearance and plea of not guilty on petitioner's behalf. Trial was set for September 9, 1977.

Prior to that trial date, petitioner was cited by the town of Darrington for a separate offense of driving while intoxicated, which led to the filing of a new complaint in Cascade District Court. Because of two continuances granted in the State case, the town of Darrington case came on for trial first.

At the trial on the Darrington charge, petitioner presented the results of an evaluation made after the second offense by Drinkers' Diversion Service in Everett, recommending a deferred prosecution program for petitioner because of his alcohol-related problems with the law. With the concurrence of the Darrington prosecutor, the court approved the deferred prosecution. The State took no part in this proceeding.

By the time the State's case came on for trial on January 10, 1978, petitioner had already embarked on the outpatient program which had been ordered in the Darrington case. At trial he moved for an order deferring prosecution based apparently on the same evaluation which had resulted in the earlier deferral. The State objected, arguing that the statute required its concurrence in any petition for deferred prosecution. RCW 10.05.030. The court granted petitioner's motion over the prosecutor's objection and issued an order granting deferred prosecution. This new order required among other things an inpatient program for 28 days at Valley General Hospital at Monroe.

On January 23, 1978, the court denied the State's motion for reconsideration, giving the following reasons for its order deferring prosecution: (1) under the statute the State ordinarily must concur, but the court may make exceptions if "an injustice will result"; (2) if the order deferring prosecution were not entered in this case, the resulting prosecution would "essentially wreck" the program entered in the previous case. ¹

On February 6, 1978, the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Snohomish County Superior Court seeking review of the district court order deferring prosecution. The superior court issued the writ, and on June 13, 1978, it vacated the order of the district court. In his oral opinion, the judge agreed that an injustice might result in this case if the deferred prosecution were not upheld, but that RCW 10.05.030 specifically "limited the power of the court to place people within a deferred program." He also expressed the view that it was "senseless not to defer prosecution in this case," but the court's equitable powers were "stripped" by the statute.

The issue we must decide, then, is whether RCW 10.05 (Deferred Prosecution-Courts of Limited Jurisdiction) precludes the court from ordering an investigation and evaluation for a deferred prosecution in the absence of the prosecuting attorney's concurrence.

I.

RCW 10.05 provides for deferred prosecution in courts of limited jurisdiction when an individual's wrongful conduct

is the result of or caused by alcohol problems, drug problems, or mental problems for which the person is in need of treatment and unless treated the probability of future reoccurrence is great(.)

RCW 10.05.020. An accused who wishes to petition for deferred prosecution must do so at the time of arraignment. RCW 10.05.010. Once the petition is filed,

(t)he arraigning judge upon consideration of the petition and with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney may continue the arraignment and refer such person for a diagnostic investigation and evaluation to an approved alcoholism treatment facility ...

RCW 10.05.030. If the person is referred for evaluation, the treatment facility investigates and, if appropriate, devises a treatment plan which it submits in writing to the court. RCW 10.05.040, .050. If the court approves the treatment plan and the defendant agrees both to comply with its terms and to pay the costs involved, the court may order deferred prosecution. RCW 10.05.060.

Const. art. 4, § 1 vests judicial power in the courts of Washington. Our inquiry in evaluating the present statute thus requires us to (1) decide whether the power to continue the arraignment and refer a person for diagnostic evaluation is essentially judicial or prosecutorial, and (2) if wholly or partially judicial, whether the prosecution may exercise a "veto" over the court's decision. This question is one of first impression in Washington.

II.

At the outset it is important to emphasize what is not at issue here. The State does not dispute that the decision to defer prosecution following an evaluation and written report is entirely a judicial function. The statute provides, in pertinent part:

If the report recommends treatment, the court shall examine the treatment plan. If it approves the plan and the defendant agrees to comply with its terms and conditions and agrees to pay the cost thereof or arrange for the treatment, an entry shall be made upon the person's court docket showing that the person has been accepted for deferred prosecution.

RCW 10.05.060. The statute clearly contemplates that the court evaluate the treatment plan and its factual basis and make a disposition based on an analysis of the available evidence. These are judicial acts for which the prosecuting attorney has no role or responsibility, as the statute unambiguously provides. See People v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 59, 520 P.2d 405, 113 Cal.Rptr. 21 (1974).

III.

Although there is no express statement of legislative purpose in RCW 10.05, it is apparent that the legislature has provided for deferred prosecution in courts of limited jurisdiction because of a need for sentencing alternatives which are more appropriate for some defendants than those available in the traditional criminal process. RCW 10.05.020 states, for example:

The petition shall allege that the wrongful conduct charged is the result of or caused by alcohol problems, drug problems, or mental problems for which the person is in need of treatment and unless treated the probability of future reoccurrence is great ...

(Italics ours.)

As the State itself has pointed out, the statement of legislative purpose attached to RCW 9.95A, which provides for deferred prosecutions for those accused of felonies, supports this view. RCW 9.95A.010 provides, in part:

It is the intention of the legislature in enacting this chapter to increase the protection afforded the citizens of this state, to permit a more even administration of justice in the courts, to rehabilitate adult offenders, and to reduce the necessary for commitment of adults to either state or county institutions for convicted persons by developing, strengthening and improving both public and private resources available in the local communities and counties ...

In the Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxification Treatment Act, RCW 70.96A, the legislature has further declared it to be

the policy of this state that alcoholics and intoxicated persons may not be subjected to criminal prosecution solely because of their consumption of alcoholic beverages but rather should be afforded a continuum of treatment in order that they may lead normal lives as productive members of society.

RCW 70.96A.010. This policy is given content in the provision under review, which permits the court with the consent of the prosecuting attorney to

refer such person for a diagnostic investigation and evaluation to an approved alcoholism treatment facility as designated in chapter 70.96A RCW, if the petition alleges an alcohol problem ...

RCW 10.05.030.

These statements of legislative purpose demonstrates that the decision to refer an accused for a diagnostic evaluation is essentially a sentencing alternative and therefore at least partially a judicial act. Moreover, the express language of RCW 10.05 itself provides that a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor "may petition the court to be considered for a deferred prosecution program." (Italics ours.) RCW 10.05.010. Nowhere is it provided that the accused petitions the prosecutor. Then, the arraigning judge "upon consideration of the petition and with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney may continue the arraignment and refer ..." (Italics ours.) RCW 10.05.030. Consideration of a petition by the court involves an examination of the circumstances of the particular case: weighing of the allegations, hearing argument contrary to the petition, and resolving the disputes between the parties. These are fundamentally judicial acts.

The State argues that vesting the court with sole authority to refer a person for evaluation invades the charging function which is traditionally reserved to the prosecuting attorney. Jackson v. United States, 357 A.2d 409, 411 (D.C.App.1976); People ex rel. Leonard v. Papp, 386 Mich. 672, 194 N.W.2d 693 (...