State v. Deskins
| Decision Date | 05 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 88140–5.,88140–5. |
| Citation | 322 P.3d 780,180 Wash.2d 68 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Pamela D. DESKINS, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, Attorney at Law, Casey Grannis, Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Rasmussen, Stevens County Prosecutor, Colville, WA, Pamela Beth Loginsky, Washington Assoc of Prosecuting Attorney, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Pamela Deskins challenges the sentence she received after a jury found her guilty of a misdemeanor violation of the cruelty to animals statute, chapter 16.52 RCW. She asks us to determine (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited her from owning or living with animals as a condition of probation, (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to forfeit any remaining animals to the Stevens County Sheriff's Office after giving her seven days to find them new homes, and (3) whether the trial court violated her due process rights by proceeding to sentencing 22 minutes after the verdict and imposing restitution to reimburse the county for animal care. We hold that the forfeiture challenge is moot, and we affirm the Court of Appeals on the remaining issues.
¶ 2 Deskins lived on a property in rural Stevens County where she kept many dogs, as well as several horses, llamas, donkeys, and other animals. She kept roughly 40 dogs at any given time—often confining them together in one large fenced area. Deskins sometimes kept feral dogs on the property. Michael Benson also lived on the property in a trailer separate from the house, and he had a few animals of his own, including one dog.
¶ 3 Several neighbors contacted police after they witnessed a series of violent incidents involving Deskins's dogs. On May 6, 2008, some of Deskins's dogs jumped over the fence and attacked a neighbor's dog named Winnie. The details of the attack are gruesome. Winnie suffered major injuries and bites that nearly killed her, but she survived after a local veterinarian treated her at a cost of approximately $1,400.
¶ 4 On September 17, 2008, several neighbors witnessed the pack of dogs on Deskins's property attack and kill one of their own. The neighbors gathered on the roadway near Deskins's property to film the attack and report it to police. While they were there, Deskins arrived home. The neighbors saw Deskins place the dead dog in her pickup truck. Deskins became upset when she saw the crowd of neighbors and threatened to shoot them if they did not leave.
¶ 5 On September 29 and October 1, neighbors witnessed and filmed two similar attacks. Each time the pack of dogs mauled and killed a smaller dog in the pack. The neighbors would try to stop the attacks by yelling at the dogs, but they did not enter the pen themselves, fearing for their safety. On October 2, one neighbor saw Deskins drive down the road with a black bag in the back of her truck. About one mile down the road, she saw Deskins's truck stopped in the roadway. Then she saw Deskins reenter her truck and drive away. The neighbor noticed that the black bag was missing. She pulled over and found a dead dog in a black bag at the side of the road where Deskins had stopped. Police retrieved the carcass, and a veterinarian determined that the dog had been dead for several days. It had a broken femur and deep bite wounds on its neck consistent with a dog attack.
¶ 6 Police obtained a warrant and seized 37 dogs that lived on Deskins's property. The dogs were sent to SpokAnimal, a local animal rescue. SpokAnimal had to euthanize several of the dogs because they had health issues or were too aggressive. SpokAnimal held the dogs until December 24, 2008, when the Stevens County Sheriff's Office agreed to return 15 dogs in exchange for Deskins releasingthe others to be adopted or euthanized.
¶ 7 Deskins was charged with four misdemeanors—one count of animal cruelly in the second degree, one count of transporting or confining animals in an unsafe manner, one count of harassment, and one count of tampering with physical evidence. Deskins was tried in district court in February 2010. Her trial lasted three days. Witnesses testified to the facts stated above and also testified that they saw Deskins's dogs attack her donkeys and even kill one of her llamas. A SpokAnimal employee testified that it is unsafe to confine a pack of dogs in an undivided enclosure because the larger, aggressive dogs will attack smaller, subordinate ones. The jury convicted Deskins on all charges.
¶ 8 Sentencing began after a 22–minute recess that followed the verdict. Deskins requested a one-week continuance to prepare for sentencing, but the court denied the motion. The trial judge cited the limited schedules of the court and, at a later hearing to reconsider sentencing, explained:
[G]oing immediately to sentencing—may not have been your expectation, it is certainly—allowable and here where I've worked with the case since November 6th, 2008 I was very familiar with all of the allegations, all of the arguments of counsel—on both sides and—did not feel the least pressure or hesitancy in going forward to sentencing.
3 Transcript of Proceedings (TR) at 675. The State was prepared for sentencing. The State presented videos and victims testified about the traumatic events they witnessed. They talked about the trauma of witnessing the gruesome attacks and also about how they lost their sense of security after Deskins threatened them. Winnie's owners talked about the $1,400 in veterinarian bills they paid to treat her, and Captain George 1 made a statement and presented documents detailing the county's costs for caring for the seized dogs. At that point the county had paid $21,582.21 and still owed SpokAnimal $5,940.00. These documents were not filed with the court, but the judge did review them during sentencing. Defense counsel anticipated that the court would order forfeiture of her animals and asked for time to rehome them. The State requested that Benson take care of finding new homes for the animals and he agreed to do so. Deskins agreed to this option and asked that Benson be given 30 days to rehome the animals.
¶ 9 The court recessed for 74 minutes while the judge reviewed the documents related to sentencing. The court imposed a total of 850 days of confinement with 300 days suspended and two years of probation. It imposed several conditions on the sentence, including requiring Deskins to undergo psychological counseling, noting that it had this power under former RCW 16.52.200 (2003).2 Then the court went on to say:
The other conditions are: do not own, acquire or live with pets or livestock during the probationary period. Additionally, do not go to the property of or have any contact with Laurie Strong. Other, all pets, livestock, domestic or commercial, shall be forfeit to Stevens County Sheriff on 3/5/21—[sic].3
3 TR at 632 (alteration in original). The court gave Benson seven days to rehome the animals, and the court indicated that it believed Benson when he said he would do so. The court ordered Deskins to pay Winnie's owners $1,400 for her injuries and the sheriff's department $21,582.21 for the cost of caring for the animals. It noted that these figures were “substantially below—what the actual reimbursement costs are.” Id. at 640.
¶ 10 Deskins appealed to the superior court. The superior court affirmed the convictions for transporting or confining animals in an unsafe manner and animal cruelty. It reversed and remanded for new trial the harassment conviction, and it reversed and dismissed the tampering with physical evidence conviction. The superior court also ordered the trial court to clarify some conditions of the probation and the legal authority for ordering restitution for injuries to Winnie. The Court of Appeals accepted review and, in an unpublished opinion, it reversed and remanded her conviction for animal cruelty. State v. Deskins, noted at 170 Wash.App. 1021, 2012 WL 3861275, at *6. It upheld her conviction for confining animals in an unsafe manner. Id. at *5. The court rejected other challenges, including Deskins's arguments that (1) the district court lacked authority to prevent her from owning or living with animals during the probationary period, (2) the district court lacked authority to order her pets and livestock be forfeited if not rehomed after seven days, and (3) the district court violated her due process rights by proceeding to sentencing after a 22–minute recess and by imposing restitution for animal care costs. Id. at *6–10. We granted review of these issues only. State v. Deskins, 176 Wash.2d 1027, 301 P.3d 1048 (2013).
¶ 11 1. Did the trial court err when it ordered that the defendant could not own or live with animals during the probationary period?
¶ 12 2. Did the trial court err when it ordered that the defendant's animals that had not been rehomed seven days after sentencing would be forfeited to the State?
¶ 13 3. Did the trial court violate the defendant's due process rights when it proceeded to sentencing shortly after trial ended and imposed restitution to reimburse the sheriff's office for costs relating to animal care?
¶ 14 Sentencing conditions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Riley, 121 Wash.2d 22, 37, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). Restitution orders, when authorized by statute, are also reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Enstone, 137 Wash.2d 675, 679, 974 P.2d 828 (1999). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons.” In re Marriage of Katare, 175 Wash.2d 23, 35, 283 P.3d 546 (2012), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 889, 184 L.Ed.2d 661 (2013).
¶ 15 The district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conaway
...at 553, 461 P.3d 1159 ("The SRA is a technical statute, with specific definitions for the terms it uses."); see State v. Deskins , 180 Wash.2d 68, 77-78, 322 P.3d 780 (2014) (emphasizing courts’ discretion in misdemeanor sentencing whereas discretion in felony sentencing has been severely r......
-
State v. Haggard
...to misdemeanors for which sentencing courts retain "a great deal of discretion when setting probation conditions." State v. Deskins , 180 Wash.2d 68, 78, 322 P.3d 780 (2014). I discuss Carrier and what it means for this case further in Part II.7 In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton , 152 Wash.2d......
-
State v. Beaver
...and substantial public interest. Sorenson, 80 Wash.2d at 558, 496 P.2d 512. Mootness is a jurisdictional concern. State v. Deskins, 180 Wash.2d 68, 80, 322 P.3d 780 (2014). As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Beaver's claim is of continuing and substantial public interest. ¶ 15......
-
State v. Conaway
... ... for felony sentencing purposes and felony sentencing purposes ... alone. RCW 9.94A.030; Haggard , 195 Wn.2d at 553 ... ("The SRA is a technical statute, with specific ... definitions for the terms it uses."); see State v ... Deskins , 180 Wn.2d 68, 77-78, 322 P.3d 780 (2014) ... (emphasizing courts' discretion in misdemeanor sentencing ... whereas discretion in felony sentencing has been severely ... restricted by SRA). The majority cites no authority that ... justifies importing a sentencing definition ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...123 Wn.2d 467, 869 P.2d 392 (1994): 11.7(9)(b) State v. Depaz, 165 Wn.2d 842, 204 P.3d 217 (2009): 12.8(3) State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68, 322 P.3d 780 (2014): 13.3(1)(a) State v. Devlin, 164 Wn. App. 516, 267 P.3d 369 (2011), review denied, 174 Wn.2d 1008 (2012): 23.6, 26.2 State v. Dhaliw......
-
§ 13.3 Mootness
...in numerous civil and criminal cases. Representative cases are summarized below. (a) Criminal cases STATE V. DESKINS, 180 Wn.2d 68, 322 P.3d 780 (2014). After convicting defendant ofcruelty to animals, the trial court prohibited defendant from owning or living with animals during a two-year......