State Of Washington, Res. v. Donna L. Howland, App., 68873-1

In 1988 Howland was acquitted of first-degree murder by reason of insanity and committed to Western State Hospital (WSH) after findings she was a substantial danger to others.
After nearly two decades of treatment she received conditional release in 2005, but it was revoked in 2010 following deterioration and readmission; she remained committed at WSH.
On February 7, 2012 Howland filed a one‑page petition for conditional release without supporting declarations or expert declarations; WSH and its Risk Review Board opposed release and submitted letters stating she remained a substantial danger.
The superior court dismissed the petition as frivolous without a hearing, reasoning that in light of the hospital/RRB opinions the court had no basis to grant release absent expert testimony in support of Howland’s petition.
Howland appealed, arguing (1) the dismissal was appealable as of right under RAP 2.2(a) and (2) alternatively sought discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(2), claiming the court erred by requiring expert testimony before holding a hearing.
The Court of Appeals concluded the order was not appealable as of right and declined discretionary review, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Howland's Argument	State/WSH's Argument	Held
Appealability under RAP 2.2(a)	Order denying petition for conditional release is appealable as of right under RAP 2.2(a) analogous to other post‑judgment mental‑health orders	RAP 2.2 does not list denial of conditional‑release petitions; omission indicates it is not appealable as of right	Not appealable as of right under RAP 2.2(a); order is not a final order for RAP 2.2(a)(13)
Discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(2): probable error	Court abused discretion by refusing a hearing absent expert testimony; dangerousness can be assessed without experts	Court had discretion; State presented expert opinions opposing release, so requiring a countervailing expert before a full hearing was reasonable	No probable error: court did not abuse discretion given hospital/RRB opinions opposing release
Discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(2): effect prong	Dismissal substantially limits her freedom to seek release in future absent expert evidence	Order affects only the current petition and litigation posture; no immediate collateral effect outside litigation	Effect prong not met; order does not substantially alter status quo beyond this litigation

In re Dependency of Chubb, 112 Wn.2d 719 (1990) (omission from RAP 2.2 indicates matter is generally subject to discretionary review)
In re Petersen, 138 Wn.2d 70 (1999) (denial of probable‑cause/initial hearing for committed person is not a final order; trial court retains continuing jurisdiction)
State v. Platt, 143 Wn.2d 242 (2001) (when secretary opposes, court has discretion whether to convene hearing on conditional release)
Mayer v. STO Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677 (2006) (standards for abuse of discretion: manifestly unreasonable, untenable grounds, or untenable reasons)
State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647 (2003) (quoting standards clarifying abuse‑of‑discretion review)