Opinion ID: 2959724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factualandproceduralbackground

Text: In 2005, Rickey Arelious Beaver was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of residential burglary. The court found that Beaver suffered from a mental disease or defect and held that he posed a substantial danger to other persons and presented a substantial likelihood of committing criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless kept under further control by the court. The court committed Beaver to Western State Hospital (WSH) and to the custody of the secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services (secretary). The court granted Beaver's conditional release 1 in 2007. 2 Between 2007 and his final discharge in 2014, Beaver violated the terms of his conditional release several times. Because of these violations and because the trial court continued to 1 'Conditional release' means modification of a court-ordered commitment, which may be revoked upon violation of any of its terms. RCW 10.77.010(3). 2The conditions and terms of Beaver's initial conditional release prohibited him from leaving the state without permission from his supervising community corrections officer (CCO) appointed by the Department of Corrections; possessing explosive devices, firearms, or any other weapon; or using alcohol or controlled substances. In addition, the terms of his release required him to maintain good conduct in the community and not to violate any laws or ordinances. Beaver was also required to take his prescribed medications and submit to random urinalysis and blood or breath testing whenever requested by his CCO. The conditions required him to enter into a state certified inpatient drug and alcohol program for at least 28 days, and upon discharge he was required to attend an outpatient drug and alcohol program. After release from the drug and alcohol program, Beaver was required to reside at a location approved by his CCO. Beaver was to remain in prescribed geographic boundaries and notify his ceo prior to making any changes in address or employment. Beaver was also required to report to his CCO as requested and cooperate with the CCO's monitoring activities. 2 State v. Beaver, No. 91112-6 find that Beaver was a danger to society, the terms of his conditional release were modified or revoked several times. In 2011, Beaver petitioned for final discharge. WSH submitted a letter to the court recommending Beaver's final discharge because WSH found that Beaver did not show signs or symptoms of mental illness that could not be explained by substance abuse. The Public Safety Review Panel (PSRP? reviewed Beaver's treatment record, evaluations, and letters from the prosecuting attorney and Beaver's defense counsel and opposed Beaver's discharge. The State and Beaver obtained independent mental health evaluations. Brian Judd, PhD, for the State, opined that Beaver remained mentally ill and a threat to the community. Brendon Scholtz, PhD, for Beaver, recommended Beaver's final discharge. In July 2011, a jury trial began on Beaver's petition for final discharge. Before resting, Beaver voluntarily withdrew his petition. Beaver agreed that he continued to suffer from a mental illness that made him a threat to public safety-the criteria for a defendant who is not guilty by reason of insanity under RCW 10.77.110-and stipulated to an agreed order of conditional release. On conditional release, Beaver violated the terms by usmg cocame, by drinking alcohol and driving a motor vehicle, and by being charged with the crime 3 The PSRP was created in 201 0 and convenes to make independent assessments of the public safety risk involved in the secretary's recommendations to the court. RCW 10.77270. 3 State v. Beaver, No. 91112-6 of driving under the influence of alcohol. In January 2013, the State successfully moved to revoke Beaver's conditional release. During the conditional release revocation hearing, Beaver did not request a mental health examination pursuant to RCW 10.77.190(2). In fact, the first and only time that there was any discussion at the conditional release revocation hearing about Beaver's mental disease or defect was when the trial judge, after stating that he would revoke, expressed concern about recommitting Beaver when WSH had earlier indicated Beaver no longer continued to suffer from a mental illness. 4 However, the trial judge recognized there were contradictory opinions and his comments were not incorporated into the trial court's findings. Beaver appealed the trial court's order revoking his conditional release, arguing that due process required a finding of current mental illness before the court could revoke his conditional release and recommit him to WSH. While this appeal was pending, Beaver filed a petition for final discharge under RCW 10.77.200(3). Based on agreement of the parties, Beaver was granted conditional release in 4Iam satisfied that Mr. Beaver is in violation of his conditional release. Now, I am going to revoke the conditional release .... The other concern that I had ... [is] apparently the treating doctors at Western State at least at the last examination were of the opinion that there was no mental health disease. That was reviewed and ... the public safety board thought he was a risk to public safety. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 30. I am satisfied he is a risk to the public. VRP at 32. 4 State v. Beaver, No. 91112-6 October 2013. Then in May 2014, again based on agreement of the parties, Beaver was granted final discharge. 5 Although the Court of Appeals found that the case was moot, it reviewed the merits and held that substantive and procedural due process do not require a judicial finding of current mental illness before the court can revoke conditional release. State v. Beaver, 184 Wn. App. 235, 239, 336 P.3d 654 (2014). We granted Beaver's petition for review. State v. Beaver, 182 Wn.2d 1020, 345 P.3d 783 (2015).