FILED
APRIL 27, 2021
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. 37483-1-III
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STEVENS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT )
JUDGE & STEVENS COUNTY )
DISTRICT COURT, )
)
Respondent. )
FEARING, J. — In our second review of this case, we must decide whether the
Stevens County Superior Court complied with the Washington Supreme Court’s mandate
commanding the Superior Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Stevens
County District Court to accept certain Superior Court orders for filing. We hold in the
affirmative and confirm the Superior Court’s order for writ.
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
FACTS
On January 29, 2018, the Stevens County Superior Court ordered all preliminary
appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors to be heard by the
Superior Court, including cases initially filed in the Stevens County District Court. The
Superior Court justified this order as preventing scheduling conflicts between the courts,
court clerks, prosecutors, defense counsel, and the county jail.
On February 2, 2018, District Court Judge Gina Tveit ordered the district court
staff not to file any orders in a district court case unless those orders had been signed by a
district court judge. This direction barred the filing of orders signed by a superior court
judge and effectively barred the handling of any misdemeanor proceedings by a superior
court judge. The February 2 district court order obviously conflicted with the January 29
superior court order.
On February 8, 2018, the State of Washington sought a writ of mandamus with the
Stevens County Superior Court directing the Stevens County District Court to permit
filing of orders signed by superior court judges. The superior court subsequently ordered
an alternative writ against the district court directing the court to comply with the writ or
to show cause as to why she has not complied. The district court objected to the writ.
On March 7, 2018, a visiting judge in the Stevens County Superior Court held the
Stevens County District Court was not required to recognize the superior court’s orders in
cases originally filed in the district court. The visiting judge observed that neither party
2
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
cited to any case law or statute granting the superior court the authority to sign orders for
misdemeanors absent the district court’s authorization.
The State of Washington appealed to this court, which reversed and held that the
district court could not refuse to file superior court orders. State v. Stevens County
District Court Judge, 7 Wn. App. 2d 927, 936, 436 P.3d 430, aff’d, 194 Wn.2d 898, 453
P.3d 984 (2019). This court remanded to the superior court with instructions to grant the
State’s writ of mandamus petition.
The district sought review from the Washington Supreme Court, and the high
court granted review. The Washington Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a
superior court may “conduct preliminary appearance hearings and enter related orders in
all county misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, even when a charge has been filed in
the country’s district court and the district court assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the
trial process[.]” State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d 898, 902, 453
P.3d 984 (2019). The opening sentence to the Supreme Court’s opinion states:
This case asks us to determine whether a superior court may conduct
preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors originally filed in district court.
State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d at 900.
The state high court affirmed this court’s judgment and remanded to the superior
court to issue a writ of mandamus against the district court. At the conclusion of the
opinion, the court wrote:
3
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
We hold the Superior Court may preside over preliminary
appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors originally
filed in the District Court. Court rules authorize the Superior Court to
preside over these hearings regardless of whether the case was originally
filed in the Superior Court or the District Court. Furthermore, RCW
3.66.060 does not restrict the Superior Court’s authority to preside over
these hearings. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment
and remand the case to the Stevens County Superior Court to issue a writ of
mandamus against the Stevens County District Court to accept cases from
the Superior Court.
State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d at 908. The Supreme Court
issued a mandate on January 15, 2020, which writ read:
This case is mandated to the superior court from which the appellate
review was taken for further proceedings in accordance with the attached
true copy of the opinion.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 71.
PROCEDURE
On remand to the Stevens County Superior Court, the State of Washington
presented a proposed peremptory writ of mandamus, which would order the Stevens
County District Court as follows:
The Stevens County District Court is further permanently and in
perpetuity COMMANDED to accept, file, and comply with all orders
signed by a Stevens County Superior Court Judge or Stevens County
Superior Court Commissioner in a Stevens County criminal matter,
including but not limited to Rule 3.2 Hearing Orders Conditions of Release,
Warrants, or Orders Quashing Warrants.
CP at 3.
4
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
The Stevens County District Court objected to the State’s proposed writ. The
district court characterized the proposed writ as overly broad in that it required the district
court to accept, file, and comply with all orders from the superior court. The district
court contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling only addressed the superior court’s
authority to preside over preliminary appearances in misdemeanor prosecutions.
A visiting judge of the Stevens County Superior Court agreed with the district
court’s position. The visiting judge, on February 18, 2020, signed an “Order for
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus.” The order reads as follows:
[T]his court does hereby:
ORDER That the Stevens County District Court shall accept for
filings those orders signed by the Stevens County Superior Court judges
and commissioners from preliminary appearance hearings for
misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors in cases originally filed in said
district court.
CP at 12. The visiting judge concluded that the Supreme Court’s mandate did not
authorize or require the superior court to hear proceedings with regard to all defendants
being held in custody on district court charges. The judge noted that the State did not
argue on appeal to either this court or the Supreme Court that the proposed writ was
intended to apply to situations other than preliminary appearances. The visiting judge did
not insert a return date on the order for writ.
5
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, the State of Washington challenges the Stevens County Superior Court
ruling’s format and substance. The State seeks to invalidate the ruling because the court
signed an “order for writ,” rather than a “writ.” The State also seeks to void the ruling
because of the lack of a return date. In addition, the State complains that the superior
court order does not comply with the Supreme Court ruling in that the superior court
narrowly defined the directions of the Supreme Court.
Writ Format
Issue 1: Whether the superior court erred when entering an “Order for
Peremptory Writ of Mandamus,” rather than a “Writ?”
Answer 1: No.
The State contends that the Stevens County Superior Court order for writ lacks a
proper format in violation of RCW 7.16.180. The State argues that the Supreme Court
mandated that the superior court issue a writ, not an order for writ, and therefore, the
superior court erred.
RCW 7.16.180 governs the format of writs of mandamus. The statute declares:
The writ may be either alternative or peremptory. The alternative
writ must state generally the allegation against the party to whom it is
directed, and command such party, immediately after the receipt of the writ,
or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be performed, or to
show cause before the court, at a specified time and place, why he or she
has not done so. The peremptory writ must be in some similar form, except
6
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
the words requiring the party to show cause why he or she has not done as
commanded must be omitted and a return day inserted.
(Emphasis added.) The writ challenged on appeal is a peremptory writ.
The Stevens County Superior Court captioned its February 20, 2020 directive as
an “Order for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus.” We hold that the issuance of an order,
rather than a writ, does not invalidate the validity of the writ or excuse the district court
from following the order. Nothing in RCW 7.16.180 requires any magic words or voids
the writ if the phrase “order for” proceeds the word “writ” in the title. The substance of
the order, in compliance with RCW 7.16.180, included the party required to act and the
instruction with which the party must comply.
Issue 2: Whether the superior court erred when failing to insert a return date in
the order for writ?
Answer 2: Because of the unique directions in the order, no.
We have some concern that the peremptory writ fails to insert a return date as
directed by RCW 7.16.180. Nevertheless, the writ demands continuing compliance of its
terms, rather than demanding that the district court complete a discrete task by a date
certain. Under these circumstances, a return date makes little sense. For this reason, we
conclude that the lack of a return date does not void the order for writ.
Issue 3: Whether the superior court erred by narrowing the State’s proposed writ
to instances of misdemeanors rather than all in-custody criminal proceedings?
7
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
Answer 3: No.
The State contends that the superior court interpreted the Supreme Court’s
mandate too narrowly. The State argues that the Supreme Court held that the writ should
direct the district court to accept all filings related to in-custody criminal proceedings.
The State contends that the superior court thereby erred by failing to include in its order:
(1) cases not originally filed in district court, (2) arrests and initial appearances based on
a district court’s bench warrant, and (3) arrests and initial appearances based on probation
violations from a district court.
In support of its assignment of error, the State requests this court to direct the
Stevens County Superior Court to strictly follow the Supreme Court’s ruling and
mandate. In turn, the district court asks this court to limit its review to whether the
superior court abused discretion in following the Supreme Court’s ruling. We believe we
can follow each request and arrive at the same decision.
The Washington Supreme Court’s opening line in its opinion declared:
This case asks us to determine whether a superior court may conduct
preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors originally filed in district court.
State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d 898, 900 (2019) (emphasis
added). The Supreme Court concluded its opinion as follows:
We hold the Superior Court may preside over preliminary
appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors originally
filed in the District Court. Court rules authorize the Superior Court to
8
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
preside over these hearings regardless of whether the case was originally
filed in the Superior Court or the District Court. Furthermore, RCW
3.66.060 does not restrict the Superior Court’s authority to preside over
these hearings. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment
and remand the case to the Stevens County Superior Court to issue a writ of
mandamus against the Stevens County District Court to accept cases from
the Superior Court.
State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d at 908 (emphasis added). Note
that the closing line, highlighted by the State, reads broadly, while two other lines in the
opinion mention only preliminary appearances for misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors.
While we agree with the State that the superior court must strictly follow the
Supreme Court’s decision, we also conclude that the superior court and this court must
consider the entirety and context of the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court
stated twice that the only issue before it concerned the superior court’s authority to
preside over preliminary appearances in misdemeanor cases. During litigation, the State
only mentioned preliminary appearances in misdemeanor cases. We conclude that the
superior court did not err when refusing to sign the State’s proposed writ of mandamus
and when signing the court’s own writ.
In advancing its own proposed writ of mandamus, the State emphasizes some
broad language in this court’s first opinion. We previously wrote:
This matter is reversed and remanded to superior court with
instructions to grant the State’s petition for writ of mandamus.
9
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
State v. Stevens County Dist. Court Judge, 7 Wn. App. 2d 927, 936 (2019). Nevertheless,
the superior court must follow the ruling of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
Finally, the State asserts that the superior court misapprehended CrR 3.2 and
CrRLJ 3.2. The State highlights that CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 apply to all in-custody
appearances, not merely preliminary appearance hearings. The district court responds
that the Supreme Court did not require the superior court to construe the criminal rules.
Rather, the high court ordered the superior court only to enter an order consistent with the
Supreme Court’s mandate. We agree with the district court.
The Supreme Court’s opinion observed that the court rules authorize the superior
court to preside over preliminary appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross
misdemeanors:
We hold the Superior Court may preside over preliminary
appearance hearings for misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors originally
filed in the District Court. Court rules authorize the Superior Court to
preside over these hearings regardless of whether the case was originally
filed in the Superior Court or the District Court.
State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, 194 Wn.2d 898, 908 (2019). The Supreme
Court itself construed the criminal rules relevant to this case. The Supreme Court did not
direct the superior court to construe the rules further. The superior court’s only duty is to
follow the Supreme Court’s instructions.
10
No. 37483-1-III
State v. Stevens County District Judge
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Stevens County Superior Court’s order for writ entered on February
20, 2020.
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.
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
______________________________
Staab, J.
11