State Of Washington v. Anthony Gene Hand
199 Wash. App. 887
Wash. Ct. App. U2017Background
- Anthony Hand was charged with first-degree escape and unlawful possession of a controlled substance; he remained in county jail after failing to post bail.
- The trial court found Hand incompetent and ordered commitment to Western State Hospital (WSH) for up to 45 days of competency restoration, directing WSH to admit him within 15 days per Trueblood.
- WSH did not admit Hand until 61 days after the 15-day deadline due to a long inpatient waitlist and bed shortages; DSHS/WSH explained systemic capacity constraints.
- The trial court issued contempt sanctions and a $500/day penalty against DSHS, but ultimately denied Hand’s motions to dismiss or to be released from custody; Hand was later found competent and convicted at a stipulated-facts bench trial.
- Hand appealed, arguing the delay violated his substantive due process rights, that dismissal was required under CrR 8.3(b) for governmental misconduct, and that dismissal was required as a remedy for the constitutional violation; he also submitted an SAG alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals held the delay violated Hand’s substantive due process rights but declined to require dismissal either under CrR 8.3(b) (no showing of trial-prejudice) or as an independent remedy; SAG claims were too vague to consider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unreasonable delay in court-ordered competency restoration while in custody violated substantive due process | Hand: delay deprived him of liberty and of timely restorative treatment | State: Hand was jailed due to inability to post bail; delay did not affect liberty interest | Court: Delay violated substantive due process — incompetent defendants have liberty interests in freedom from incarceration and receiving restorative treatment |
| Whether dismissal under CrR 8.3(b) was required for governmental misconduct | Hand: WSH/DSHS misconduct (delay) prejudiced his right to a fair trial and warrants dismissal | State: No prejudice to fair trial; CrR 8.3(b) is extraordinary and requires actual prejudice | Court: Denied — although misconduct shown, Hand failed to prove prejudice to fair trial rights, so dismissal not warranted |
| Whether dismissal is required as a constitutional remedy apart from CrR 8.3(b) | Hand: constitutional violation independently requires dismissal | State: remedy should be injunctive or damages; dismissal is extreme | Court: Rejected — no authority supports dismissal for this kind of administrative delay; injunction/damages (in other cases) were the appropriate remedies |
| Whether Hand’s SAG claims of ineffective assistance are reviewable | Hand: counsel provided inadequate representation (vague) | State: (responded on record) | Court: Denied review — SAG too vague, fails to identify specific errors as required by RAP 10.10(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mink v. Oregon, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding unreasonable delays in admitting incapacitated criminal defendants to state hospital violate substantive due process)
- Trueblood v. Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Servs., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (district court finding DSHS/WSH violated due process by not providing timely competency restoration services)
- Trueblood v. Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Servs., 822 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016) (appellate decision addressing limits/remedies for delayed competency services)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973) (outrageous government conduct can bar prosecution in extreme cases)
- State v. Lively, 130 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 1996) (dismissal for outrageous government conduct limited to egregious circumstances)