Opinion ID: 2597489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Should the court grant petitioner's motion to supplement the record and amend his supplemental brief?

Text: Petitioner seeks to supplement the record, pursuant to RAP 9.10, [1] with documents pertaining to the rehearing and the subsequent sanctions imposed by the hearing officer. Petitioner also seeks to make additional arguments by way of a supplemental brief after the initial PRP was already filed, to include a request to declare the DOC's rehearing and reimposition of sanctions void. DOC stipulates to the supplementation of the record, and we therefore grant petitioner's motion to supplement the record. DOC opposes petitioner's request to amend his supplemental brief, but provides no persuasive justification for denial. Under RAP 10.1(h), an appellate court may in a particular case, on its own motion or on motion of a party, authorize or direct the filing of briefs on the merits other than those listed in the rule. It is appropriate to grant petitioner's motion to amend his supplemental brief pursuant to RAP 10.1(h). Moreover, the court has inherent authority to consider issues raised in a supplemental brief when such consideration is necessary to a decision on the merits. Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 120 Wash.2d 394, 402, 842 P.2d 938 (1992). Here, the issue raised in petitioner's supplemental brief is the propriety of the DOC's rehearing while petition for review is pending in this court. The issue thus goes to the heart of petitioner's case, and it is proper for the court to accept briefing.