IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 75648-6-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION CO
MARIAH LOVREE KNIGHT, CD
Appellant. FILED: November 14, 2016 ~
Trickey, A.C.J. — Mariah Knight appeals the trial court's decision jx*
terminate her participation in a drug court program. She contends the trial court
abused its discretion because it did not look at the underlying facts of her violations
of a drug court contract. The record shows that the trial court's exercise of
discretion was not arbitrary or capricious. We affirm.
FACTS
Knight was charged with possession of stolen mail and possession of
methamphetamine. In July 2015, she signed a drug court contract, and the trial
court allowed her to enter a drug court program in Thurston County. A week later,
the court sanctioned Knight with six days of detention because she missed two
urinalyses and failed to appear for a court hearing.
In September 2015, the State petitioned the court to terminate Knight's
participation in the program because she had had multiple positive urinalyses and
had failed to appear at her drug court review hearing. Knight did not contest the
factual allegations, but asked the court to allow her to enter a chemical
dependency program. The State deferred to the chemical dependency program,
which did not support Knight's request.
No. 75648-6-1 / 2
The court terminated her from the program, noting that this was a "simple
call" because she had not "been participating in the program."1 The court found
her guilty on both charges.
Knight appeals her termination from the drug court program.
ANALYSIS
Termination from Drug Court
Knight contends that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not
discuss the facts underlying Knight's failure to comply with the drug court contract.
Because the trial court indicated it understood the factual basis for terminating
Knight from the drug court program, we disagree.
Before terminating a participant from drug court, the court must provide
notice and a hearing. State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wn. App. 652, 658, 94 P.3d 407
(2004). The State must show the participant's noncompliance with the agreement
bya preponderance ofthe evidence. State v. Varnell, 137Wn. App. 925, 929,155
P.3d 971 (2007).
Both parties assert that the trial court has the discretion whether to
terminate the participant from the program. We agree. The trial court's role in
deciding whether to terminate a participant from drug court is analogous to its role
in "evaluating alleged probation violations." Cassill-Skilton. 122 Wn. App. at 658.
That decision is left to the trial court's discretion. State v. Kuhn, 81 Wn.2d 648,
650, 503 P.2d 1061 (1972). Similar decisions, including whether to revoke a
suspended sentence and whether a juvenile has complied with a deferred
1 Report of Proceedings (RP) (Sept. 11, 2015) at 9.
2
No. 75648-6-1 / 3
disposition order, are also left to the court's discretion.2 State v. Badger, 64 Wn.
App. 904, 908, 827 P.2d 318 (1992) (suspended sentence); State v. J A., 105 Wn.
App. 879, 887, 20 P.3d 487 (2001) (deferred disposition order).
A court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable
or based on untenable grounds. State v. Neal. 144 Wn.2d 600, 609, 30 P.3d 1255
(2001).
Here, Knight did not deny that she violated the terms of her drug court
contract by failing to appear for court and having two positive urinalyses. The drug
treatment program informed the court that it did not support admitting Knight to a
chemical dependency program. The court noted that Knight had gone "on warrant
status" shortly after joining the program, before deciding to terminate Knight from
drug court:
THE COURT:... I mean zero disrespect to you, Ms. Knight, but this
is a pretty simple call. You just haven't been participating in the
program. So the Court will terminate Ms. Knight.[3]
Knight argues that the court needed to discuss the underlying facts of the
case or analyze why terminating her from the program was the best option.
Nothing requires the court to make detailed findings on those issues. The court's
oral ruling shows why it decided to terminate Knight from the program: she was
not participating in treatment. There was no abuse of discretion.
2The statute currently governingtherapeutic courts, including drug courts, explicitly leaves
the admittance to and administration of the therapeutic court to that court's discretion.
RCW 2.30.030(2) (LawsOF 2015, ch. 291, § 3). This new statute went into effectJuly 24,
2015, just after Knight entered drug court. Neither party cites it as controlling.
3RP(Sept. 11, 2015) at 8-9.
No. 75648-6-1 / 4
Appellate Costs
Knight requests that this court not impose appellate costs if the State
substantially prevails. The State did not respond to her request. The Court of
Appeals may exercise its discretion not to impose appellate costs. State v.
Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 389, 367 P.3d 612, review denied. 185 Wn.2d 1034,
377 P.3d 733 (2016). The appellant's ability to pay is an important factor to
consider. Sinclair. 192 Wn. App. at 389. Knight was found indigent for the purpose
of this appeal. The trial court, in deciding whether to impose discretionary legal
financial obligations, determined that Knight had a limited ability to pay now or in
the near future. For that reason, we exercise our discretion not to impose appellate
costs.
Affirmed.
-"pi^ey Acj
WE CONCUR:
dtf.J .
x^=m^f"
State Of Washington v. Mariah Lovree Knight
Combined Opinion