Opinion ID: 2779090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relief under a Personal Restraint Petition

Text: The SVP statute does not contemplate the situation before us. A state cannot continue to confine someone who is no longer mentally ill and dangerous. /d. The statute addresses this by providing periodic review and release mechanisms for individuals. RCW 71.09.090. If the detainee has changed through treatment or physical injury, he or she is entitled to a new hearing to determine if he or she continues to meet the definition of an SVP. RCW 71.09.090(4). However, even if Meirhofer's condition has not changed as a result of treatment, the change in his diagnoses may mean that he is no longer mentally ill and dangerous. Contrary to the State's assertions, petitioners are not limited to challenging their confinement through statutes that do not contemplate their circumstances. Importantly, personal restraint petitions are not motions for reconsideration and they are not substitutes for direct review; the relief they seek is collateral. The whole purpose of collateral review is to provide a forum for potentially meritorious prisoners' 3 In re Pers. Restraint of Meirhofer, No. 89251-2 (Wiggins, J., dissenting) claims. In re Pers. Restraint of James, 96 Wn.2d 847, 855, 640 P.2d 18 (1982) (Utter, J., concurring). Though it does tax the judicial system to provide such collateral review, its proven historical value looms much larger than the particular economic exigencies with which we as judges are now beset. /d. (footnote omitted). When alternative grounds of relief are inadequate and a petition is not barred by RCW 10.73.090, RAP 16.4 unconditionally allows persons under restraint to raise constitutional claims. James, 96 Wn.2d at 853; RAP 16.4(a). Here, the alternative grounds for relief are inadequate: Meirhofer argues that his diagnoses changed, altering the justification for his commitment. Pers. Restraint Pet. (PRP) at 8. The statute contemplates relief only in cases in which the condition of the person has changed, not changes in the diagnoses justifying commitment. To challenge confinement through a personal restraint petition, a detainee must present a sufficiently significant change, such that a reasonable juror could conclude that the detainee is no longer mentally ill and dangerous. Meirhofer's restraint may be unlawful because the basis for Meirhofer's original commitment no longer exists.