Opinion ID: 2452328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tolling a term of community placement

Text: ¶ 14 Donaghe argues that his sentence of community placement should have run concurrently with his confinement at the SCC. This issue requires us to determine both when a period of community placement begins and when that period of community placement tolls. The Court of Appeals held that community placement can only begin in the community; therefore Donaghe's community placement never began because he was confined at the SCC after incarceration. Donaghe, 152 Wash.App. at 107, 215 P.3d 232. The Court of Appeals noted that [t]he prefix `post-' means `after,' `subsequent,' or `later,' id. at 108, 215 P.3d 232 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1771 (2002)), and concluded postrelease supervision refers to actual release into the community, as opposed to the date representing the conclusion of the offender's term of confinement. Id. The Court of Appeals did not reach the issue of whether confinement at the SCC tolled Donaghe's sentence of community custody. Id. at 110-11, 215 P.3d 232. ¶ 15 The plain language of the SRA contradicts the Court of Appeals' statutory interpretation. The SRA, in 1989, defined `[c]ommunity placement' as a one-year period during which the offender is subject to the conditions of community custody and/or postrelease supervision, which begins either upon completion of the term of confinement (postrelease supervision) or at such time as the offender is transferred to community custody in lieu of early release. Community placement may consist of entirely community custody, entirely postrelease supervision, or a combination of the two. Former RCW 9.94A.030(4). Accordingly, community custody and postrelease supervision are two potential forms of community placement. The legislature defined `[c]ommunity custody' as that portion of an inmate's sentence of confinement in lieu of early release time served in the community subject to controls placed on the inmate's movement and activities by the department of corrections. Former RCW 9.94A.030(3). While `[p]ostrelease supervision' is defined as that portion of an offender's community placement that is not community custody. Former RCW 9.94A.030(21). Former RCW 9.94A.030(4) expressly states that community custody begins when the offender is transferred to community custody in lieu of early release. Donaghe's time at the SCC was not in lieu of early release. Moreover, former RCW 9.94A.030(3) limits the meaning of `[c]ommunity custody' to that portion of an inmate's sentence that is served in the community. Donaghe was not in the community. Therefore, Donaghe's position is that his community placement sentence was in the form of postrelease supervision, which is merely defined as not community custody and, under former RCW 9.94A.030(4), begins . . . upon completion of the term of confinement. Donaghe argues that his postrelease supervision began at the conclusion of his incarceration and transfer to the SCC. ¶ 16 We agree with Donaghe and disagree with this portion of the Court of Appeals' analysis. Under the plain language of former RCW 9.94A.030(4) and (21), community placement in the form of postrelease supervision begins simply upon completion of the term of confinement. Release may be from incarceration to the SCC. Because Donaghe was transferred to the SCC at the completion of his term of incarceration, he was released and his term of postrelease supervision could statutorily begin. However, once it begins, it can also toll. ¶ 17 In 1989, the SRA provided for the tolling of sentences of confinement or supervision (including community placement sentences) as follows: Any period of supervision shall be tolled during any period of time the offender is in confinement for any reason. However, if an offender is detained pursuant to [former] RCW 9.94A.207 [(1999)][ [12] ] or [former] 9.94A.195 [(1984)][ [13] ] and is later found not to have violated a condition or requirement of supervision, time spent in confinement due to such detention shall not toll the period of supervision. Former RCW 9.94A.170(3) (emphasis added). This provision, subject to two exceptions not applicable here, provides for the tolling of a supervision sentence (including postrelease supervision) while an offender is in confinement for any reason. Id. `Confinement' is defined as total or partial confinement. Former RCW 9.94A.030(7). `Total confinement' is defined as confinement inside the physical boundaries of a facility or institution operated or utilized under contract by the state or any other unit of government for twenty-four hours a day, or pursuant to [former] RCW 72.64.050 [1979] and 72.64.060. Former RCW 9.94A.030(27). [14] ¶ 18 When a prosecuting attorney or the attorney general files a petition alleging that a person is an SVP, and the judge makes a determination that probable cause exists, the judge shall direct that the person be taken into custody. RCW 71.09.040(1). Within 72 hours, a probable cause hearing is held, at which time the person can contest the probable cause finding. RCW 71.09.040(2). Until the probable cause hearing is complete, the person may be held in total confinement at the county jail until the trial court renders a decision. Id. (emphasis added). If the court determines that there is in fact probable cause that the person is an SVP, the legislature has explicitly provided that [i]n no event shall the person be released from confinement prior to trial. RCW 71.09.040(4). During the SVP trial, the person is to be detained in a secure facility. RCW 71.09.060(1). Even if a retrial is required, the person may not be released from confinement prior to retrial or dismissal of the case. Id. Thus, Donaghe's precommitment confinement clearly falls within the definition of total confinement as he was held in custody in a state facility for 24 hours a day during the pendency of his SVP proceeding. ¶ 19 After the court held that Donaghe was an SVP, he was civilly committed to the SCC. As provided in RCW 71.09.060(1), civil commitment involves potentially permanent confinement of the SVP: If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed to the custody of the department of social and health services for placement in a secure facility operated by the department of social and health services for control, care, and treatment until such time as: (a) The person's condition has so changed that the person no longer meets the definition of a sexually violent predator; or (b) conditional release to a less restrictive alternative as set forth in RCW 71.09.092 is in the best interest of the person and conditions can be imposed that would adequately protect the community. Moreover, under the sexually violent predator act, chapter 71.09 RCW, a `[t]otal confinement facility' is defined as including the SCC where Donaghe is currently confined: `Total confinement facility' means a secure facility that provides supervision and sex offender treatment services in a total confinement setting. Total confinement facilities include the special commitment center and any similar facility designated as a total confinement facility by the secretary. RCW 71.09.020(19) (emphasis added). Donaghe's confinement at the SCC falls within the plain and unambiguous statutory definition of `[t]otal confinement' under former RCW 9.94A.030(27). Thus, under former RCW 9.94A.030(7), Donaghe was in confinement while civilly committed as an SVP at the SCC. ¶ 20 The reason for Donaghe's confinement was his precommitment civil detention and subsequent civil commitment to the SCC as an SVP. This falls within any reason. Former RCW 9.94A.170(3). While Donaghe's sentence of community placement began upon release from incarceration, it immediately tolled because of his confinement at the SCC. The trial court properly denied his motion for a certificate of discharge.