State Of Washington, V Linda Kay Harper, 76037-8

Linda Harper participated in Thurston County Drug Court after charges of five counts each of identity theft and forgery; she signed a drug court contract requiring compliance and weekly $30 payments.
Between November 10 and November 17, 2015, the court imposed sanctions (community service, jail) for missed education classes, missed orientation/12-step meetings, and failed/positive urinalysis tests; these hearings included oral notice and opportunities for Harper to speak.
The State filed a petition to terminate Harper from drug court; Harper and counsel were present at the December hearings where the petition was discussed and the court terminated her participation on December 8; reconsideration was denied after further hearings.
The trial court later entered a $30 judgment for Harper’s outstanding drug court balance based on the contract.
Harper appealed, raising (1) insufficient notice/opportunity to be heard, (2) violation of the appearance of fairness, (3) lack of legal basis for the $30 judgment, (4) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (5) that the State should not be awarded appellate costs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, upheld the $30 contractual judgment, rejected ineffective assistance and appearance-of-fairness claims, and denied appellate costs to the State based on Harper’s presumed indigency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice and opportunity to be heard before termination	Harper: petition’s declaration was too vague (only said “failure to follow all terms and conditions”) and thus lacked specific notice	State/Court: prior hearing orders and oral allegations provided specific notice and opportunities to address violations	Court: Adequate notice and opportunity were given; termination supported by admitted violations
Appearance of fairness (judicial bias)	Harper: judge’s comment he had “a pretty good idea” of outcome and tearing up her letter showed prejudgment and bias	State/Court: comments referred to already-adjudicated violations; tearing up an inappropriate ex parte letter was proper handling and judge later apologized and granted relief	Court: No violation of appearance of fairness; Harper failed to show bias
Authority to enter $30 judgment for drug court balance	Harper: $30 is an unauthorized LFO not listed in RCW 10.01.160 and thus invalid	State/Court: Harper contractually agreed to $30/week in the drug court contract, which supplies independent basis for judgment	Court: $30 judgment valid under the signed contract
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Harper: limited contact and difficulty reaching counsel left her uninformed and prejudiced	State/Court: record shows counsel met with and advised Harper multiple times; strong presumption of reasonableness	Court: Ineffective assistance not proven; claim rejected

State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wn. App. 652, 94 P.3d 407 (2004) (due process requires notice and hearing before drug court termination)
State v. Varnell, 137 Wn. App. 925, 155 P.3d 971 (2007) (State must allow defendant opportunity to contest termination basis and create record of relied-on evidence)
Hickok-Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 170 Wn. App. 279, 284 P.3d 749 (2012) (presumption that trial court performed duties without bias; burden on party alleging bias)
Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condo. Ass'n, 184 Wn. App. 593, 337 P.3d 1131 (2014) (RAP 2.5(a) normally bars new appearance-of-fairness arguments on appeal)
In re Marriage of Davison, 112 Wn. App. 251, 48 P.3d 358 (2002) (judges should shield themselves from improper ex parte communications)
In re the Pers. Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835, 280 P.3d 1102 (2012) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
In re Dependency of S.M.H., 128 Wn. App. 45, 115 P.3d 990 (2005) (strong presumption of reasonableness in counsel performance review)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 367 P.3d 612 (2016) (RAP 15.2(f) creates presumption of continued indigency during appeal)