Brian K. Maloney v. State Of Washington
198 Wash. App. 805
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brian K. Maloney was convicted in 1980 and 1983 of crimes that resulted in loss of firearm rights under RCW 9.41.010.
- In 2015 Maloney filed a petition under RCW 9.41.040(4) to restore his firearm rights; for docketing convenience the superior court required a civil filing and Maloney paid a filing fee.
- The State (Pierce County Prosecutor) appeared, agreed Maloney met the statutory thresholds, and the superior court signed an order restoring his firearm rights.
- Maloney then moved for statutory costs and attorney fees under RCW 4.84.010; the superior court denied the motion and found the petition was an extension of the original criminal proceeding and RCW 4.84.010 (a civil-costs statute) did not apply.
- Maloney appealed, arguing entitlement to costs and filing fees on the ground that he prevailed and under appellate rules and RCW 4.84.010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition to restore firearm rights is a civil proceeding for purposes of RCW 4.84.010 | Maloney: filing as a civil action and prevailing entitles him to costs under RCW 4.84.010 | State: petition arises from criminal statute, is ministerial/extension of criminal proceeding, not a civil action | Petition is an extension of the criminal proceeding; RCW 4.84.010 does not apply |
| Whether RCW 4.84.010 authorizes costs after restoration order | Maloney: statutory costs and fees follow as prevailing party upon judgment | State: RCW 4.84 applies only to civil proceedings; restoration is criminal in nature | RCW 4.84.010 applies only to civil proceedings; petition did not trigger it |
| Whether Maloney is prevailing party on appeal entitled to appellate costs | Maloney: he prevailed at trial and seeks costs on appeal under RAP 14.3/18.1 | State: Maloney did not prevail on appeal because this Court affirmed denial of costs | Maloney is not prevailing party on appeal and is not entitled to appellate costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (Wash. 2003) (standard of review for questions of law and statute interpretation)
- State v. Hayes, 182 Wn.2d 556 (Wash. 2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Swanson, 116 Wn. App. 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (petition under RCW 9.41.040(4) imposes ministerial duty when thresholds are met)
- State v. Keeney, 112 Wn.2d 140 (Wash. 1989) (chapter 4.84 RCW is under Civil Procedure and not applicable to criminal proceedings)
- Tetro v. Tetro, 86 Wn.2d 252 (Wash. 1975) (proceedings civil in form may be criminal in nature)
- State v. Sizemore, 48 Wn. App. 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987) (chapter 4.84 RCW applies to civil actions)
- State ex rel. Lemon v. Coffin, 52 Wn.2d 894 (Wash. 1958) (discusses prevailing-party entitlement to costs under chapter 4.84 RCW)