Personal Restraint Petition Of Jared Arthur Harrison (Majority)

Case Commentary

This Personal Restraint Petition (“PRP”) presented several novel issues for the Court to decide as it was not a collateral attack of the original conviction and sentence that was entered in 2005. Rather, the PRP challenged a post-conviction decision and order by Respondent, the Washington Department of Corrections, to revoke Petitioner's 2005 sentence and that he complete the unexpired term of that sentence in total confinement. The main issues presented were: 1) Whether the decision of the Respondent to not extradite Petitioner, who was the subject of a fugitive’s warrant, for nearly 8 years the application of the equitable doctrine of Laches. During that time, Respondent not only knew where Petitioner was located, but also, was presented with several opportunities to have out of state authorities arrest and hold Petitioner for return to Washington State. That included filing a detainer with the Corrections Department of a sister state. The Responded declined to extradite in each of those instances, citing budgetary constraints as its reason. The question before the Court in the PRP proceeding was whether the Respondent's multiple refusals to extradite over the course of nearly 8 years constituted a waiver of its extradition rights, warranting the application of the Laches defense, especially where re-incarceration of the Petitioner would be purpose and all but certain outcome of extradition. The Court answered that question in the negative upon the ground that Laches only applies to civil cases . However, the PRP did not seek to vacate the original judgment and conviction of the Superior Court, but rather, the Washington DOC's decision to revoke that part of Petitioner’s original alternative sentence that allowed him to serve one half of the entire term (90 months) in community custody. After an administrative hearing conducted by the DOC, Petitioner’s sentence was revoked and he was reclassified to serve the unexpired term of his original sentence in total confinement. It was that Order that the PRP challenged. Under Washington law. an administrative hearing, notwithstanding the fact that it arose out of a criminal judgment and conviction, is considered a civil matter. Therefore, Petitioner argued that the equitable defense of laches was not barred The Court, however, did not address that key distinction; 2) Whether the arrest of Petitioner in Florida on the fugitive's warrant and subsequent in-concert actions by local law enforcement and the Washington DOC violated Petitioner's state and federal due process rights. Prior to his extradition, Petitioner file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Broward County, Fla where Petitioner argued that he was the the object of an unlawful investigatory stop by a local police officer who did not have a reasonable basis to believe that Petitioner had committed a crime, was in the process of committing a crime or was about to commit a crime. The stop was random and done without a warrant. After a records check incident to the stop, the arresting officer discovered the WA DOC warrant. That was the sole basis for Petitioner's arrest and subsequent 45 day hold pending the arrival of a o WA DOC transport team to return the Petitioner to WA State. The Court granted the Writ subject to a response from the Broward County's Sheriff's Office (BSO) within ten days, demonstrating the legality of the arrest and subsequent detention. The Writ application also requested a stay with regard to any interim attempts or actions to transfer custody of Petitioner to the WA DOC which would render the matter moot. Notwithstanding, on the eve of the return date of the Writ, the BSO surrendered custody of Petitioner to the WA DOC transport team. While Petitioner advised both the BSO and WA DOC officers involved of the pending Habeas proceeding, he was removed from Florida and flown back to WA. The WA COA did not address the issue of whether the manner in which the extradition was carried out violated Petitioner's due process rights even though the Fla court had made an preliminary finding in favor of Petitioner; 3) The third notable issue presented was whether the PRP would be mooted upon Petitioner's release from confinement to community supervision as asserted by the DOC. The Court rejected the DOC's argument stating that community supervision is a form of restraint. Therefore, the PRP was properly before the Court for decision even though Petitioner had been released two months earlier.