Opinion
No. 25096-2-III.
April 10, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whitman County, No. 05-1-00225-0, David Frazier, J., entered March 23, 2006.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Kato, J. Pro Tem., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kulik, J.
James Edward Barber-Bishop appeals his conviction of one count of second degree criminal trespass. He contends he was denied due process of law and his conviction was based on an unconstitutional trespass order. We affirm.
On March 1, 2005, Washington State University's (WSU) Student Conduct Board (Conduct Board) convened to consider numerous charges against Mr. Barber-Bishop for violations of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) as identified in the student handbook.
On March 4, Mr. Barber-Bishop received a letter from the Conduct Board detailing its findings. The Conduct Board found he posed a danger to the WSU community and imposed the following sanctions:
1.8.1 "Effective immediately, you are dismissed from Washington State University and all of its branch campuses."
1.8.2 "Effective immediately, you are trespassed from Washington State University and all its branch campuses. If you are seen on campus, you will be subject to arrest by WSU police."
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 32, 75. The letter also stated:
You have the right to appeal the decision in this case and/or the sanctions. If you choose to appeal, you must do so in writing (stating the grounds and arguments) to [t]he Office of Student Conduct . . . within twenty-one days of receipt of this letter. If you choose not to appeal, this decision becomes final.
CP at 32. He did not appeal the Conduct Board's decision.
On May 4, Mr. Barber-Bishop was arrested and charged with first degree criminal trespass after he entered an administration building on the WSU campus. On May 14, he was arrested again and charged with one count of second degree criminal trespass when security guards found him walking home from the WSU campus with his friends.
On August 18, Mr. Barber-Bishop filed a motion to dismiss the charges in district court, arguing his due process and equal protection rights to a fair hearing were violated when the Conduct Board held an informal hearing to dismiss him from WSU. Specifically, he argued that unsworn testimony was used during the hearing, he was not given the right to counsel, and he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
On September 19, Mr. Barber-Bishop was found guilty of the second degree criminal trespass charge, but not guilty of first degree criminal trespass. He appealed his conviction to superior court, which affirmed the district court's ruling and the conviction. Mr. Barber-Bishop's petition for discretionary review was granted.
At the threshold, the State argues that Mr. Barber-Bishop failed to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to seeking review in the superior court.
Under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, an agency's action cannot be appealed in the courts until all rights of the administrative appeal have been exhausted. Harrington v. Spokane County, 128 Wn. App. 202, 209, 114 P.3d 1233 (2005). Courts will not intervene when an exclusive administrative remedy is provided. Id. Under the doctrine, the judiciary should defer to administrative bodies having expertise in areas outside the experience of judges. S. Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68, 73, 677 P.2d 114 (1984).
The exhaustion of remedies doctrine also "avoids premature interruption of the administrative process, provides for full development of the facts, and allows the exercise of agency expertise." Harrington, 128 Wn. App. at 210. The doctrine protects administrative agency autonomy by giving the agency the opportunity to correct its errors and discourages litigants from ignoring administrative procedures by resorting to the courts. Id. The doctrine applies in cases where a claim is originally cognizable by an agency that has established mechanisms for resolving complaints by aggrieved parties and the administrative remedies can provide the relief sought. S. Hollywood, 101 Wn.2d at 73.
Here, the procedures established by statute and administrative rule provided for an appeal of the Conduct Board's decision by raising objections to it to the university appeal board. WAC 504-25-229. The rule authorizes the appeal board to affirm or reverse the decision, or modify the sanctions of the Conduct Board's decision. WAC 504-25-229(8).
The rule therefore provides an administrative remedy for Mr. Barber-Bishop's complaint. A party cannot bypass this review and then object to the Conduct Board's final decision in court. See WAC 504-25-229(9); RCW 34.05.534.
Because Mr. Barber-Bishop has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, we decline to reach the substantive issues raised in his appeal.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Schultheis, A.C.J., Kulik, J., concur.