From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Evans

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Nov 30, 2004
124 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)

Opinion

No. 31583-1-II

Filed: November 30, 2004 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Kitsap County. Docket No: 02-8-00235-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/17/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Jay B Roof.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Thomas E. Jr Weaver, Attorney at Law, 569 Division St Ste E, Port Orchard, WA 98366-4600.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Jeremy Aaron Morris, Kitsap County Prosecuto's Office, Msc 35, 614 Division St, Port Orchard, WA 98366-4681.


Patrick Evans appeals a superior court order denying his motion for revision of a juvenile court commissioner's ruling adjudicating him guilty of making bomb threats. He argues that (1) the standard of review is de novo for both findings of fact and conclusions of law under State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 113, 86 P.3d 132 (2004); and (2) the superior court erred by using a substantial evidence standard for the findings of fact and de novo review for the conclusions of law in denying his motion to revise the commissioner's ruling. The State concedes error.

Accepting the State's concession, we remand to the superior court to review the commissioner's ruling using the de novo standard of review for both findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in Ramer.

FACTS I. Bomb Threat

In February 2003, Patrick Evans left two bomb threat notes at South Kitsap High School: One was found on February 22, 2003; the other, on February 28, 2003. Though surveillance cameras had been filming the common eating area where the second note was found, the video quality was too poor to reveal who had left the notes.

Olivia Dolgorouky was tutoring Evans in this area on February 28, but she did not notice any suspicious notes. Port Orchard Police Officer MacFann showed her a copy of the note, but she did not recognize the hand writing. Later, she viewed other samples of Evans' handwriting and thought it looked similar to the handwriting in the note. When questioned by the police, Evans denied having written the notes.

II. Procedure

The State charged Patrick Evans as a juvenile with two counts of threats to bomb or to injure property and one count of drug paraphernalia use. A superior court commissioner assigned to juvenile court adjudicated Evans guilty of both bomb threat counts and not guilty of the drug count.

Contrary to RCW 9.61.160.

Contrary to RCW 69.50.412(1).

Evans filed a motion with the superior court to revise the commissioner's ruling. He argued in his supporting memorandum and at the hearing that the standard of review for findings of fact and conclusions of law was de novo. The superior court determined that the proper standard of review was `substantial evidence supporting the findings of fact and . . . de novo for the conclusions of law.' Clerk's Papers at 87-89. Applying this standard, the trial court denied Evans' motion and affirmed the commissioner's ruling.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued its Ramer decision, holding that both findings of fact and conclusions of law are subject to de novo review.

Evans appeals.

ANALYSIS

All commissioners' rulings are subject to revision by the superior court. RCW 2.24.050. `On revision, the superior court reviews both the commissioner's findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo based upon the evidence and issues presented to the commissioner.' Ramer, 151 Wn.2d at 113.

RCW 2.24.050 provides:

All of the acts and proceedings of court commissioners hereunder shall be subject to revision by the superior court. Any party in interest may have such revision upon demand made by written motion, filed with the clerk of the superior court, within ten days after the entry of any order or judgment of the court commissioner. Such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner.

The trial court based its standard of review on State v. Lown, which held, `The scope of the superior court's review of a commissioner's ruling is limited to the record and the commissioner's findings of fact and conclusions of law.' State v. Lown, 116 Wn. App. 402, 407, 66 P.3d 660 (citing In re Marriage of Moody, 137 Wn.2d 979, 992-93, 976 P.2d 1240 (1999)), review denied, 150 Wn.2d 1024 (2003). But the Supreme Court's subsequent holding in Ramer specifically overruled this standard, holding, `Any language to the contrary in State v. Lown, 116 Wn. App. 402, 66 P.3d 660 (2003), is disapproved.' Ramer, 151 Wn.2d at 113 n. 9. The State concedes that in light of Ramer, the trial court applied an incorrect standard of review for revising the court commissioner's ruling.

The Supreme Court having subsequently overruled the standard of review that the superior court applied, we remand with instructions to review the commissioner's ruling de novo, both the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

HOUGHTON, P.J. and BRIDGEWATER, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Evans

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two
Nov 30, 2004
124 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)
Case details for

State v. Evans

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. PATRICK GREGORY EVANS, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two

Date published: Nov 30, 2004

Citations

124 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)
124 Wash. App. 1027