FILED
AUGUST 13, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 36853-0-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
ELIZABETH LYNN PARTRIDGE, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
aka ELIZABETH LYNN DARNOLD, )
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, A.C.J. — Elizabeth Partridge appeals from two convictions for third
degree assault and one count of second degree criminal trespass. Her appeal issues are
moot and the issues raised in her statement of additional grounds (SAG) are without
merit. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
Ms. Partridge was convicted on the three noted counts at a jury trial in the Chelan
County Superior Court. The court imposed a drug offender sentencing alternative
(DOSA) sentence. One of the conditions of the sentence was that Ms. Partridge “not
associate with persons known to have a felony criminal background.” The judgment also
indicated that interest would be imposed on all financial obligations.
No. 36853-0-III
State v. Partridge
Ms. Partridge timely appealed to this court. After the brief of appellant was filed,
the parties entered an agreed order removing the noted community custody condition and
the interest provision. The State therefore did not file a brief of respondent. Ms.
Partridge did file a SAG. RAP 10.10(a).
This court then considered the appeal without hearing argument.
ANALYSIS
The brief of appellant presented two issues that both became moot with the entry
of the agreed order. The SAG presents two issues which we briefly address.
An appeal is moot when an appellate court cannot provide effective relief. In re
Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 200, 728 P.2d 138 (1986). In some instances, the public
interest will justify consideration of an otherwise moot appeal. Id. This is not one of
those instances. The brief of appellant sought removal of the “known to have a felony
criminal background” condition and the interest provision. Both were subsequently
eliminated by agreed order. There is nothing more for this court to do. Those issues are
now moot.
The SAG argues that the court erred in not giving her a deferred prosecution and
that her trial counsel performed ineffectively. The problem for Ms. Partridge on the latter
issue is that she has no evidence in the record suggesting that counsel erred in any of the
respects she now claims. Accordingly, we decline to consider this argument due to lack
of an evidentiary basis. RAP 10.10(c). Her remedy, if she believes she has a factual
2
No. 36853-0-III
State v. Partridge
basis for this argument, is to file a personal restraint petition with which she could file an
affidavit describing the evidence she has available to prove her claim. E.g., State v.
McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 338 n.5, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995); State v. Norman, 61 Wn.
App. 16, 27-28, 808 P.2d 1159 (1991).
The deferred prosecution argument fails on legal grounds. A deferred prosecution
is available in the limited jurisdiction courts in accordance with CrRLJ 4.2(i) and ch.
10.05 RCW. The criminal rules for courts of limited jurisdiction govern criminal
proceedings in courts of limited jurisdiction. CrRLJ 1.1. The superior court is not a
court of limited jurisdiction. Compare RCW 2.08.010 with ch. 3.02 RCW. The superior
court follows the criminal rules in criminal proceedings. CrR 1.1. Chapter 9.94A RCW
is the sole basis for felony sentencing in Washington. RCW 9.94A.905.
Neither the criminal rules nor RCW 9.94A contain any provision authorizing
deferred prosecutions. RCW 10.05.010(1) explicitly limits eligibility for deferred
prosecutions to persons charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor in courts of
limited jurisdiction, such as district or municipal court, but does not provide for deferred
prosecution in superior court. Further, the defendant must petition the court for deferred
prosecution prior to trial and prior to being convicted. That did not happen here.
A deferred prosecution is not available to felony offenses. The SAG issues are
without merit.
3
No. 36853-0-III
State v. Partridge
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.
_________________________________
Korsmo, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
_________________________________
Siddoway, J.
4