State v. Velasquez
176 Wash. 2d 333
Wash.2013Background
- Hutchison and Velasquez, charged with DUI in district court, petitioned for deferred prosecution claiming indigency and seeking public funds for substance-dependency treatment.
- RCW 10.05.130 requires funds to provide investigation, examination, report and treatment plan for indigent persons unable to pay for treatment.
- Superior Court vacated district court orders authorizing public funds for full treatment, holding RCW 10.05.130 is plain and does not cover full treatment.
- Petitioners and respondent sought appellate review; issue framed around whether funding covers the full course of treatment or only the treatment plan document.
- Statutory interpretation urged, with constitutional challenge left undecided since resolution of statutory issue suffices for disposition.
- Conclusion: court affirms, holding RCW 10.05.130 does not authorize funding the full course of treatment for indigent deferred prosecution defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 10.05.130 funds full treatment or just the plan | Hutchison/Velasquez — funds cover full treatment | State — funds cover only investigation, reports, and treatment plan document | Funds do not cover full treatment; only plan/document funding. |
| Does interpretation conflict with Article VIII, Section 4 constitutionality | State argues constitutional limitation violated | No decision on constitutionality necessary | Constitutional question not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Seattle v. Burlington N. R.R., 145 Wn.2d 661 (2002) (statutory interpretation guided by plain language)
- State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106 (2007) (plain language interpretation; harmonization of related provisions)
- State v. Chapman, 140 Wn.2d 436 (2000) (harmonization of statutory scheme)
- State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536 (2010) (approach to statutory interpretation and related provisions)
- State v. Hahn, 83 Wn. App. 825 (1996) (plain-language interpretation not ambiguous)
- Isla Verde Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740 (2002) (avoid constitutional ruling when nonconstitutional grounds exist)
- Moore v. Snohomish County, 112 Wn.2d 915 (1989) (constitutional limit on state funds applicability)
- State v. Snohomish County Dist. Court, 172 Wn.2d 1023 (2011) (supreme court reference for funds appropriation context)