FILED
SEPTEMBER 2, 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
In the Matter of the Detention of: ) No. 37993-1-III
)
A.H. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
PENNELL, C.J. — A.H. appeals a Pierce County Superior Court order authorizing
involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. We affirm.
FACTS
A.H. has a history of involuntary commitment. In March 2019, the State petitioned
to (1) recommit A.H. for 180 days of involuntary treatment, and (2) involuntarily treat
A.H. with antipsychotic medication. A Pierce County jury found A.H. had a mental
disorder and should be involuntarily treated for 180 days. A superior court commissioner
subsequently issued an order authorizing Western State Hospital to involuntarily
No. 37993-1-III
In re Det. of A.H.
administer antipsychotic medication. The commissioner’s order did not specify the
maximum dosage of antipsychotic medication. A.H., who was represented by counsel, did
not object.
A.H. timely appeals the medication order. A Division Three panel considered
A.H.’s appeal without oral argument after receiving an administrative transfer from
Division Two.
ANALYSIS
A.H. argues the commissioner’s order to involuntarily treat with antipsychotic
medication is invalid because it does not identify the maximum permitted dosage of
medication allowed under the order. The State argues this claim should not be reviewed
because it was not preserved. We agree with the State.
“As a general rule, appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first
time on appeal.” State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 332-33, 899 P.2d 1251
(1995) (citing RAP 2.5(a)). Courts, however, have discretionary authority to consider
claims of manifest constitutional error that were not raised in the trial court. Id. at 333
(quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)). Determining whether an alleged constitutional error is manifest
requires the appellate court to “place itself in the shoes of the trial court to ascertain
whether, given what the trial court knew at that time, the court could have corrected the
2
No. 37993-1-III
In re Det. of A.H.
error.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 100, 217 P.3d 756 (2009). “If the trial court could
not have foreseen the potential error or the record on appeal does not contain sufficient
facts to review the claim, the alleged error is not manifest.” State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d
287, 344, 290 P.3d 43 (2012), abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Gregory,
192 Wn.2d 1, 427 P.3d 621 (2018).
Here, there was no error that would have been manifest to the superior court
commissioner. Two months before the initiation of the instant proceedings, Division Two
of this court decided In re Detention of B.M., 7 Wn. App. 2d 70, 88-92, 432 P.3d 459,
review denied, 193 Wn.2d 1017, 444 P.3d 1185 (2019). Division Two addressed the
precise issue raised by A.H. and held there is no constitutional requirement for courts to
place limits on maximum medication dosage in the context of an individual who is
involuntarily committed for medical reasons. Id. at 89-91. Like A.H.’s case, B.M. arose
in Pierce County.
Given the holding in B.M., the commissioner did not commit obvious error in
failing to limit the maximum dosage available under A.H.’s medication order. We decline
to review A.H.’s claim pursuant to RAP 2.5(a).
3
No. 37993-1-III
In re Det. of A.H.
CONCLUSION
The order authorizing involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medications is
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.
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.
______________________________
Staab, J.
4