Seattle Attorneys Blog
In an appropriate Washington drug case, drug court can allow a participant to obtain treatment and have criminal charges dropped. The drug court program requires the participant to obtain treatment, submit to drug testing, and comply with a number of other requirements. Failure to comply with the drug court agreement can have serious consequences, so it is important for a potential participant to fully understand the requirements of the program and consider if they will be able to comply.
A defendant challenged his termination from a drug court program and subsequent convictions in a recent unpublished case. The state charged the defendant with physical control of a vehicle while under the influence and subsequently added another charge of physical control of a vehicle while under the influence and another for driving under the influence.
The defendant was accepted into a drug court program and agreed to abstain from drugs and alcohol, attend treatment sessions and appointments, live in sober housing, and have random urinalysis testing. He also agreed that the reports, witness statements, lab and test results, and expert testing or examinations could be sufficient for a guilty finding on the pending charges if he was terminated from the program. He also agreed to waive certain rights if terminated. If he completed the program, the charges would be dismissed with prejudice, but if he was terminated, the court could find him guilty based on the stipulated documents.
The defendant relapsed and stopped maintaining contact with the program after about three months. The drug court let him remain in the program but told him inpatient treatment was his “last chance” and a condition of him remaining in the program.
The defendant relapsed again soon after his discharge from inpatient treatment and did not show up for his urinalysis or treatment appointments. The state sent him notice of the violations, and he was subsequently arrested on another drug court warrant. The state moved to revoke his release. The state argued it was the second time he had been noncompliant and that he had “become a danger to the community.”
The defendant’s attorney argued the defendant had mental health issues that contributed to his noncompliance. Counsel argued he had loss and trauma that needed to be addressed and he could better do so if allowed to stay in the program. The defendant did not contest the accusations.
The court terminated the defendant from the program, explaining that he had failed to comply with the requirements twice. The court also pointed out that the charges related to substance abuse and also represented danger to the safety of others. The court then found the defendant guilty of the charges. The parties signed a “Stipulation to Facts—Trial on the Record Upon Discharges for Non-Compliance with Therapeutic Court Contract.” The defendant had stipulated in the drug court contract that the allegations were sufficient for the court to find him guilty of all of the charges against him. The court found the record established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant appealed, arguing his due process rights were violated.
The appeals court explained the objectives of drug court are different from those of criminal court. Drug courts are intended to be collaborative and treatment-focused. Drug court may also include other activities like community service and job training. Participants in a drug court program do have due process rights regarding termination. Previous case law has held that they have a right to know the specific reasons the state is seeking termination either before or during the hearing. They must also be informed they have a right to contest the alleged violations and the termination. State v. Starkgraf. They also have the right for the drug court to determine if the state has proven the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Harrison.
Notice
The defendant argued he did not receive adequate notice of the termination because he was not informed of the alleged violations before the hearing. He argued the notice of violation and verbal warning he received were not sufficient to give him adequate notice before the hearing.
The appeals court pointed out that notice may generally be given either before or during the hearing. The defendant had received a verbal warning and notice of violation, but even if they did not constitute sufficient notice, he was given notice of the specific reasons for the termination at the hearing. The drug court had warned the defendant that inpatient treatment was his “last chance.” Additionally, the defendant’s attorney responded to the state’s arguments and the defendant made a statement. They both responded to the state’s allegation the defendant had absconded from the program and neither indicated any surprise or asked for additional time. The appeals court determined the defendant had received sufficient notice to comply with due process requirements. The appeals court did acknowledge in a footnote, however, that there could be circumstances where a participant who first received notice of the reasons for the termination during the hearing could be denied their due process rights.
Right to an Evidentiary Hearing
The defendant also argued he was not expressly informed of the right to an evidentiary hearing to contest the alleged violations or the termination. He argued there was no evidence in the record he received that information and he may not have agreed to the facts if he had known of his right to an evidentiary hearing.
The state argued it could be inferred the defendant had been informed of his rights pursuant to Starkgraf. The state also argued any error related to this matter was harmless because the defendant conceded that he relapsed and did not comply with the agreement.
The appeals court agreed there was likely error in the drug court’s failure to expressly inform the defendant of his right to contest the allegations or the termination, but determined the error was harmless. There was no indication the outcome would have been different. The defendant had the opportunity to challenge the termination at the hearing where he was represented by counsel. He explained why he had not complied with the program and asked to be allowed to remain in it.
The appeals court also determined the court’s reasoning for terminating him was not subject to being challenged at an evidentiary hearing. The defendant conceded the facts at the hearing, but even if he had not, he had stipulated the criminal charges in the drug court agreement. The appeals court noted his absconding was a matter of public record. The appeals court concluded the error was harmless.
Burden of Proof
The defendant also argued the drug court had not found that the state had the burden of proving he committed the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence or that it had met that burden.
The state argued the defendant’s admissions supported the drug court’s decisions.
The appeals court agreed the drug court should have stated the applicable burden of proof, but determined the error was harmless. The defendant had admitted to committing the violations and stipulated that other records and evidence could be used to support a decision to terminate him from the program. The appeals court concluded the bases for the decision were supported beyond the preponderance of the evidence standard. The appeals court determined this error was also harmless.
Findings and Conclusions
The appeals court rejected the defendant’s argument the findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficient. He argued the court was required to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the case should be remanded.
The appeals court determined the defendant’s convictions had been supported by written findings and conclusions because the order referenced the defendant’s stipulation and acknowledgement the documents and exhibits were sufficient for the court to find him guilty. The appeals court also pointed out the court stated in its oral ruling that it was basing its decision on the stipulated police reports.
Although the court’s conclusions were “cursory,” within the context of drug court and the agreements and stipulations the defendant had made, the oral ruling and the court’s order were specific enough to allow meaningful review.
The appeals court affirmed the defendant’s drug court termination and convictions.
Call a Seattle Attorney
Drug court can be a valuable opportunity for some individuals accused of drug crimes, but it is not appropriate for everyone. If you are facing drug charges, an experience Washington criminal defense lawyer can advise you of your options and fight to protect your rights. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.