Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appellate Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner urges review of continuance in State v. Robertson; state says motion likely moot
Summary
At a Division II oral argument, petitioner’s counsel argued the trial court abused its discretion by granting a continuance without evidence of the State’s diligence or the recommendation’s materiality; the state countered that scheduled hearings make the review likely moot. The court took the matter under advisement and asked to be notified if the scheduled hearing moots the appeal.
Talitha Hazleton, counsel for petitioner Megan Robertson, asked the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, to accept discretionary review and direct the trial court to hold a scheduling conference to advance an evidentiary hearing. Hazleton argued the trial court’s continuance relied solely on the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) not having provided a recommendation and failed to record any showing of the State’s diligence or the materiality of that recommendation to justify a continuance. “This court should enter a decision which tells the trial court that the record below was insufficient to authorize a good cause continuing,” Hazleton said, urging clarification because Ms. Robertson’s liberty interests are implicated and similar petitions could be affected.
The state’s lawyer responded that the motion is likely moot because evidentiary hearings were already set for August 14 and August 21. Counsel for the respondent said the four prongs of appellate rule 2.3(b) do not support accepting review here and described continuances as routine trial-court discretion. The respondent’s counsel also described DSHS’s internal timeline, saying the petition was filed May 4, internal reviews and a Public Safety Review Panel were triggered, and a final recommendation had been expected in mid-to-late July — reasons the state characterized as evidence of diligence. The presiding commissioner took the matter under advisement and asked parties to notify the court if the scheduled hearing renders the appeal moot, allowing brief filings on mootness.
