Background

• Slattum, a felon serving indeterminate life with life community custody, moved for postconviction DNA testing under RCW 10.73.170.
• RCW 10.73.170 allows felons 'currently serving a term of imprisonment' to petition for DNA testing at public expense.
• The State argued 'imprisonment' requires confinement in a jail or prison; Slattum argued it includes community custody.
• Trial court granted testing, ruling community custody satisfies 'term of imprisonment' and is within the statute’s scope.
• State moved to stay testing; after testing occurred, the issue was deemed moot but presented as a matter of public interest.
• Court analyzes whether the statute’s language is ambiguous and, if so, applies the rule of lenity in Slattum’s favor.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• City of Seattle v. State, 100 Wn.2d 232 (1983) (public-funds/public-interest considerations support review)
• In re Personal Restraint of Greening, 141 Wn.2d 687 (2000) (rule of lenity as alternate ground in collateral context)
• Riofta v. State, 166 Wn.2d 358 (2009) (innocence-focused substance of postconviction testing; strict standards)
• State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723 (2003) (legislative intent presumed in statutory language without limiting modifiers)
• State v. Anderson, 151 Wn. App. 396 (2009) (imprisonment term defined without location-specific qualifiers in some contexts)
• State v. Blackburn, 168 Wn.2d 881 (2010) (distinguishes imprisonment vs. total confinement in reclassification contexts)
• State v. Parent, 164 Wn. App. 210 (2011) (lenity applied to probationary-consecutive terms when ambiguity exists)
• State v. Davis, 160 Wn. App. 471 (2011) (lenity used to interpret time-credits issues in community custody contexts)
• In re Sentence of Kindberg, 97 Wn. App. 287 (1999) (lenity when statutes read together create irreconcilable interpretations)