State v. Anthony Jason Sims (DSHS-appellant)
34120-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- DSHS/Western State Hospital were held in contempt for failing to timely complete competency evaluations for criminal defendants; the trial court imposed daily monetary sanctions across consolidated cases totaling $337,500 plus 12% interest.
- In the lead case (State v. Sims), the court orally ordered DSHS to perform an evaluation by December 2; oral contempt was found December 12 and the defendant’s evaluation occurred December 15.
- The trial court later entered written contempt orders (weeks later) imposing $200/day from the ordered deadline until the contempt was purged; the orders directed funds to the court/Spokane County Detention Services.
- DSHS appealed, arguing (1) punitive sanctions were imposed without required procedures, (2) sanctions before the written order were punitive, (3) oral findings are ineffective until reduced to writing, and (4) sovereign immunity bars postjudgment interest on sanctions.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated ~26 similar appeals and reviewed (a) remedial vs. punitive contempt procedure limits, (b) effective date for remedial monetary accrual, (c) enforceability of oral contempt findings, and (d) whether the State impliedly waived sovereign immunity for postjudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether punitive sanctions could be summarily imposed when contempt did not occur in judge's presence | Trial court: sanctions were remedial/coercive under RCW 7.21, not punitive | DSHS: sanctions were punitive and required RCW 7.21.040 procedures (prosecutor filing, trial) | Sanctions that punished pre-finding conduct are punitive and cannot be summarily imposed; strike punitive portion because RCW procedures were not followed |
| Whether monetary remedial sanctions may accrue dating before the court's contempt finding | Respondents: remedial sanctions could reach back to missed deadlines to coerce compliance | DSHS: amounts owing before written order are punitive because no purge opportunity | Remedial sanctions are limited to amounts accruing from the date the court actually made the contempt finding (oral finding effective); earlier amounts that punish past failure are punitive and must be stricken |
| Whether an oral contempt finding is ineffective until reduced to written order | DSHS: oral rulings are not binding/final and sanctions should not apply until reduced to writing | Respondents: oral rulings should be enforceable; written order requirement not in statute | Oral contempt findings are effective; statute authorizes forfeiture per day once court finds contempt and written entry is not prerequisite for remedial accrual; written findings remain necessary for appellate review |
| Whether the State waived sovereign immunity for postjudgment interest on statutory sanctions | DSHS: no express waiver; interest barred by sovereign immunity | Respondents: chapter 7.21 RCW provides comprehensive relief (including attorney fees) implying waiver | Implied waiver found — RCW 7.21.030(3) authorizes comprehensive compensatory relief, so state consent to postjudgment interest is implied; award of postjudgment interest affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dependency of A.K., 162 Wn.2d 632 (2007) (standard for reviewing trial court authority to impose contempt)
- In re Pers. Restraint of King, 110 Wn.2d 793 (1988) (civil contempt is coercive; contemnor can purge)
- In re Rapid Settlements, Ltd., 189 Wn. App. 584 (2015) (purge clause required to preserve coercive nature)
- State v. Buckley, 83 Wn. App. 707 (1996) (punitive contempt does not permit purge opportunity)
- State v. Dailey, 93 Wn.2d 454 (1980) (oral decisions not final until incorporated into written findings for judgment purposes)
- Templeton v. Hurtado, 92 Wn. App. 847 (1998) (trial courts must enter written contempt findings to protect enforcement authority and enable review)
- Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 171 Wn.2d 54 (2011) (test for implied waiver of sovereign immunity; look to statutory language and purpose)
- Architectural Woods, Inc. v. State, 92 Wn.2d 521 (1979) (express vs. implied waiver analysis)
- Smoke v. City of Seattle, 132 Wn.2d 214 (1997) (attorney-fee provisions indicate legislative intent for comprehensive relief)
- McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477 (2012) (use of contempt to enforce court-ordered governmental duties)