Court Opinion

ID: 9898342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:30:04.815919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:03.822320
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        AUGUST 1, 2023
                                                                 In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                WA State Court of Appeals Division III

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                            DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of Personal Restraint of:       )
                                              )           No. 39079-9-III
Brandon Riley Creech.                         )
                                              )
                                              )           UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                              )

       FEARING, C.J. — We review petitioner Brandon Creech’s personal restraint

petition (PRP) arising from the Washington State Department of Corrections’ (DOC)

termination of his drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) sentence due to his

failure to participate in treatment. We deny the petition because Creech fails to

demonstrate an unlawful restraint, let alone prejudice.

                                          FACTS

       We begin with the State of Washington’s prosecution of Brandon Creech in 2019.

The State charged Creech with one count of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm

and one count of third degree theft. Creech pled guilty to both charges.

       On December 23, 2019, the superior court sentenced Brandon Creech to a prison-

based DOSA sentence pursuant to RCW 9.94A.662. The court ordered Creech to serve

39 months in confinement and 39 months in community custody. That same day, the
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

superior court approved Creech’s transfer from the Grant County Jail to the custody of

DOC.

       DOC conducted a substance abuse assessment of Brandon Creech to identify the

level of treatment he required. The assessment recommended that Creech receive

treatment care at American Society of Addiction Medicine Level 3.3. Level 3.3 affords

clinically managed high-intensity services targeted to the addict’s individual needs. A

Level 3.3 program offers a slow pace program designed for individuals with cognitive

impairments.

       The facility, in which DOC housed Brandon Creech, did not offer Level 3.3

treatment. DOC offers this level of treatment only in minimum security prisons. The

highest level of treatment available to Creech at his facility was Level 2.5. Level 2.5

treatment entails twenty hours of outpatient services without any help for cognitive

impairment.

       DOC issued Brandon Creech numerous prison infractions during his time in

confinement, most of which lack relevance to the personal restraint petition. We list

those that bear relevance to Creech’s argument that evidence presented to the DOC

hearing officer biased the officer against him.

       Brandon Creech received four serious infractions between January 2020 and

August 2020, while serving the confinement portion of his DOSA sentence. As a result

                                             2
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

of the behavior, DOC classified Creech at a medium custody level for the rest of his time

in confinement. We list the infractions below:

             January 28, 2020: Violation Code 663 - Using physical force,
      intimidation, or coercion against any person.

             June 11, 2020: Violation Code 710 - Acquiring an unauthorized
      tattoo/piercing/scar, tattooing/piercing/scarring another, or possessing
      tattoo/piercing/scarring paraphernalia.

             July 30, 2020: Violation Code 752 - Possessing, or receiving a
      positive test for use of, an unauthorized drug, alcohol, or intoxicating
      substance.

              July 30, 2020: Violation Code 896 - Harassing, using abusive
      language, or engaging in other offensive behavior directed to or in the
      presence of another person(s) or group(s) based upon race, creed, color,
      age, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, marital status or status
      as a state registered domestic partner, disability, veteran’s status, or genetic
      information.

Response of Department of Corrections (Resp.) Ex. 1, Att. A at 59; WAC Handbook 400-

HA001.pdf (wa.gov).

      On August 20, 2020, the substance abuse unit, in which Brandon Creech was

housed, initiated a DOSA revocation violation against Creech due to the multiple

violations he committed up to that point. A DOC hearing officer found Creech’s DOSA

termination to be valid. Under WAC 137-24-060, an offender may appeal the decision of

a hearing officer to the DOC appeals panel. Creech appealed the decision to the panel on

September 20, 2020. The panel upheld the decision. The substance abuse unit,

nevertheless, moved forward with a code 762 serious violation it had issued Creech

                                              3
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

August 19, 2020 due to his failure to complete the DOSA treatment program. The record

offers no explanation for the substance abuse unit’s decision to proceed with the code 762

violation. Administrative termination from the DOSA treatment program occurs under

violation code 762. WAC 137-24-030 provides that offenders accused of committing a

code 762 violation are entitled to a DOC hearing on the violation before their

administrative termination from DOSA treatment becomes effective. On December 22,

2020, a DOC hearing officer found Creech not guilty of committing a code 762 violation

and permitted him to return to his DOSA treatment.

       Thereafter, Brandon Creech committed three more serious infractions between

October 2020 and July 2021.

              October 20, 2020: Violation Code 728 - Possessing any sexually
       explicit material(s), as defined in WAC 137-48-020.

              October 21, 2020: Violation Code 506 - Threatening another with
       bodily harm or with any offense against any person or property.

             June 26, 2021: Violation Code 558 - Interfering with staff members,
       medical personnel, firefighters, or law enforcement personnel in the
       performance of their duties.

Resp. Ex. 1, Att. A at 59; WAC Handbook 400-HA001.pdf (wa.gov).

       On August 17, 2021, Brandon Creech met with April Byrd and Jason Lewis, two

DOC substance use disorder professionals, to discuss his DOSA treatment. Byrd

recorded the details of this meeting in a serious infraction report. Lewis left the room

during the meeting. After Lewis exited, Creech explained to Byrd that he was not

                                             4
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

refusing treatment, but he wanted Level 3.3 treatment, not the Level 2.5 treatment DOC

afforded him at the time. After Creech expressed his desire for Level 3.3 treatment,

Creech’s body language, according to Byrd, turned intimidating, and he moved his body

erratically. Creech remarked to Byrd:

             It [my anger] would have nothing to do with you. I just won’t be
      able to stop myself. If I get angry in group, I will fight and hurt someone. I
      can’t even stop myself in the unit.

Resp. Ex. 2, Att. B at 90. Creech added that something clicks in his head. He later

calmed down and apologized.

      As a result of Brandon Creech’s confrontation with April Byrd on August 17,

2021, DOC issued Creech a serious infraction, under violation code 663, for using

physical force, intimidation, or coercion against April Byrd. DOC issued two more

serious infraction notices to Creech before the end of August 2021:

             August 22, 2021: Violation Code 710 - Acquiring an unauthorized
      tattoo/piercing/scar, tattooing/piercing/scarring another, or possessing
      tattoo/piercing/scarring paraphernalia.

             August 31, 2021: Violation Code 710 - Acquiring an unauthorized
      tattoo/piercing/scar, tattooing/piercing/scarring another, or possessing
      tattoo/piercing/scarring paraphernalia.

Resp. Ex. 1, Att. A at 59-60; WAC Handbook 400-HA001.pdf (wa.gov).

      On September 1, 2021, a hearing officer conducted a hearing on the August 17

infraction. Brandon Creech testified at the hearing that he wanted to receive a higher

level of treatment than what DOC offered or else he wanted to delay treatment until his

                                            5
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

release from incarceration. He added that he told Byrd that DOC’s continued provision

of a lower level of treatment would cause him to fight in treatment classes. Creech

explained that, during the August 17 meeting with Byrd, he did not seek to intimidate

Byrd. Instead, he “was trying to manipulate the treatment process.” Resp. Ex. 2, Att. B

at 90. The DOC hearing officer found Creech guilty of a code 663 serious violation

based on the infraction report and his own testimony.

       On October 5, 2021, DOC again administratively terminated Brandon Creech from

the DOSA treatment program for failing to participate in the program. Heidi Moran, the

DOC officer who signed Creech’s DOSA treatment termination report, wrote in the

notice that, while serving his time in confinement, DOC repeatedly afforded Creech

opportunities to participate in Level 2.5 treatment, but Creech repeatedly chose not to

participate in such treatment. Instead, Creech insisted on Level 3.3 treatment. The

termination notice identified the following reasons for Creech’s termination from the

DOSA program:

             Violation of the DOSA agreement.
             Violation of the Treatment Participation Requirements.
             Willful noncompliance with the DOSA program by removing
       himself from the ability to receive assessed level of treatment due to his
       behaviors.
             Safety and security risk for the community.

Resp. Ex. 2, Att. C at 95. Moran further wrote in the notice:

             Mr. Creech has spent many years in a cycle of the same behaviors.
       Looking at his history in OMNI it is apparent there have been very few

                                             6
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       changes in his behavior. It is recommended that he do long term treatment
       in a residential facility and he receive the 3.3 or 3.5 (in the community)
       treatment that he was originally assessed at when it is available and when
       he is amenable to attend. Mr. Creech needs to understand that “long term”
       does not mean a couple of weeks and know that he needs the treatment that
       is recommended not what he may want.

Resp. Ex. 2, Att. C at 95.
                                      PROCEDURE

       As a result of Brandon Creech’s termination from the prison DOSA treatment

program, DOC sought to revoke Creech’s DOSA sentence. On November 1, 2021,

Creech received and signed a notice of allegations, hearing, rights, and waiver for the

revocation. His signature on this form indicated he read and understood the allegations

against him, the hearing notice, and his rights as outlined in the form. He requested a

hearing.

       A DOC hearing officer conducted a DOSA revocation hearing on November 3,

2021. The DOC hearing officer affirmed the revocation. In its written ruling, the hearing

officer noted reliance on the following evidence to find Brandon Creech guilty for failing

to comply with DOSA requirements: “J & S,” “Notice of Allegation, Hearing, Rights,

and Waiver form,” “Report of Alleged Violations,” “Conditions, Requirements, and

Instructions form,” “CCO [community correction officer] Testimony,” and “Offender

Testimony.” Resp. Ex. 2, Att. E at 101.

                                             7
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

      On November 16, 2021, Brandon Creech appealed the DOC hearing officer’s

decision to the DOC appeals panel. The DOC appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer.

The panel wrote:

             Mr. Creech, the Appeals Panel has reviewed the contents of your
      appeal, evidence and audio recording of the administrative hearing
      conducted on November 3, 2021. . . . While your appeal was extensive and
      context listed, the focus of the finding was simply, were you compliant with
      your DOSA. The answer is no. The record reflected the discovery packet
      was properly served and there was no issue raised or communicated
      regarding a lack of preparation. As noted on the record, the presiding
      Hearing Officer did not consider infractions from a prior process. The
      Hearing Officer considered only the evidence provided in evidence as well
      as the documents you provided thus was appropriate for all parties to
      respond appropriately. The record supported there were infractions
      preceding this current process however the presiding Hearing Officer
      clearly stated his decision was based solely on your behavior since your last
      762 hearing process. The record also supports the presiding authority did
      not reference nor use any infraction behavior preceding the last process.
      The process was also void of prejudice.
             . . . Again, the record supported proper service in advance of the
      hearing without raised issues at the time of the hearing. The Appeals Panel
      does not know the process in preparation of an appeal however it was clear
      you submitted a timely appeal which contained an articulated defense. The
      Appeals Panel will note your appeal contained information from prior and
      current processes however neither party may add or supplement the record
      post hearing. The presiding authority appropriately made a decision based
      on the evidence and testimony provided at your hearing.
          The record supports your recommended Level of Care was 3.3. The
      record revealed the Prison DOSA Agreement was again signed August 12,
      2021, you subscribed your request to be placed in 3.3 treatment however
      you were not refusing treatment. The substance abuse disorder individual
      service document signed August 17, 2021 reiterates you subscribed you
      were not refusing any treatment that is being offered. You indicated you
      were not willing to substitute 3.3 treatment with a lesser level of treatment,
      but you would comply with any treatment only because it was explained

                                            8
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       that if you did not, you could face possible revocation. While you contend
       your willingness to enter any level of treatment, you also indicate you were
       not willing to substitute level 3.3 treatment. The record as well as your
       testimony also reveal you have other issues which contribute to your level
       of care. There was no debate you have had a lesser level of treatment in the
       past which has had negligible results based on your current sentence where
       substance abuse was the foundation for your current sentence. The record
       showed your unwillingness to comply with facility rules since your last
       process resulting in closed custody and medium level of custody which has
       removed any opportunity to access the 3.3 level of care. At no time has
       your custody suited the minimum level of custody to enter a level 3.3
       treatment. You state a willingness to comply with treatment however your
       actions demonstrated a different narrative. As the presiding Hearing
       Officer inferred, your actions spoke louder than your words. You have
       knowingly made efforts to dictate your treatment expectations, yet your
       behavior has continually removed your ability to reach that goal. Even on
       this last occasion, while you stated your willingness to enter any form of
       treatment, your actions showed a different path. Your disposition and
       communicated displeasure in your conversation on August 17, 2021, was so
       threatening, the substance abuse counselor questioned if she would
       continue her career path. You demonstrated a clear inability to maintain
       your composure and the presiding Hearing Officer determined a
       preponderance of the evidence was met regarding your underlying
       behaviors based on the evidence and corroborating testimony provided in
       this hearing. In considering the totality of the evidence, it is clear there
       have been five new infractions resulting in custody level changes and over
       the last year, no treatment, as well as the continued behaviors is concerning.
       In summary, the Appeals Panel affirms the presiding Hearing Officers
       sanction as the evidence supports you were in noncompliant with your
       DOSA.

Resp. Ex. 2, Att. G at 144.

       Brandon Creech brings a personal restraint petition before this court. He seeks to

be restored to a prison-based DOSA sentence.

                                             9
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

                                 LAW AND ANALYSIS

       To prevail in his personal restraint petition, Brandon Creech must demonstrate that

his restraint is unlawful. RAP 16.4(a). To establish an unlawful restraint the petitioner

must demonstrate either a constitutional violation or violation of state law.

RAP 16.4(c)(2); In re Personal Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 148, 866 P.2d 8

(1994). In turn, a petition alleging a constitutional error must also show “actual and

substantial prejudice,” while a petition alleging nonconstitutional error must also show “a

fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” In re

Personal Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 148 (1994) (quoting In re Personal

Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 812, 792 P.2d 506 (1990)) (internal citations omitted).

       Under RAP 16.7(a)(2), a petitioner must list grounds for relief by including the

facts on which he bases his claim of unlawful restraint, the evidence available to support

those factual allegations, and the reasons why the restraint is unlawful. Bare allegations

unsupported by citation to authority, references to the record, or persuasive reasoning do

not support a personal restraint petition. In re Personal Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d

876, 886, 828 P.2d 1086 (1992); State v. Brune, 45 Wn. App. 354, 363, 725 P.2d 454

(1986). For this court to reverse the outcome of a prison discipline hearing, the petitioner

must show that the proceeding was so arbitrary and capricious as to deny the petitioner a

fundamentally fair proceeding. In re Personal Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72,

82, 484 P.3d 1 (2021).

                                             10
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       Brandon Creech contends DOC violated numerous constitutional due process

rights and violated state law with regard to prisons. We address all of the due process

contentions before analyzing state law.

                                        Due Process

       Brandon Creech contends DOC violated his due process rights because (1) DOC

failed to prove each infraction, on which it relied at the DOSA revocation hearing, by a

preponderance of the evidence, (2) he lacked access to evidence needed to prepare for the

DOSA revocation hearing and his DOC appeal, (3) evidence presented by DOC about

Creech’s nondrug related infractions biased the hearing officer, and (4) DOC never

advised him of his right to appeal infractions for the earlier nondrug related violations.

       Prisoners facing discipline are not entitled to the full panoply of due process

protections afforded defendants facing criminal charges. In re Personal Restraint of

Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72, 82 (2021). An individual facing possible revocation of

community custody is entitled to the minimum due process protections established in

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2953, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972) for parole

revocation hearings. In re Personal Restraint of McNeal, 99 Wn. App. 617, 619, 994

P.2d 890 (2000). The United States Supreme Court listed such protections as:

               (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure
       to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person
       and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to
       confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer

                                             11
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral
       and detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of
       which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement
       by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
       parole.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972); In re Personal Restraint of Bufalini, 4

Wn. App. 2d 392, 403, 423 P.3d 262 (2018). In addition to the minimum due process

protections established in Morrissey v. Brewer, at a hearing to revoke a DOSA sentence

following administrative termination from the DOSA treatment program, due process

requires that both the administrative termination and the facts that served as a basis for

terminating treatment be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Personal

Restraint of Schley, 191 Wn.2d 278, 287-90, 421 P.3d 951 (2018) (plurality opinion); In

re Personal Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72, 82 (2021).

       WAC 137-104-050(6) also demands that DOC prove each alleged violation by a

preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that

the evidence establish the proposition at issue is probably more true than not true. In re

Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. App. 420, 425, 961 P.2d 963, 969 P.2d 1082 (1998).

       Brandon Creech argues that DOC violated his due process rights when it failed to

prove each infraction by a preponderance of the evidence at his DOSA revocation

hearing. He maintains that the hearing officer simply reviewed the infraction reports, did

not review the hearings regarding the infractions, and did not review any related reports,

                                             12
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

video evidence, photo evidence, or witness statements. The record indicates otherwise.

The record establishes that DOC hearing officer relied on Creech’s judgment and

sentence, the notice of allegation, hearing, rights, and waiver form he signed, the report

of alleged violations, conditions, requirements, and instructions form, CCO testimony,

and Creech’s testimony. These sources of facts supplied sufficient evidence to support

the hearing officer’s termination of the DOSA sentence.

       To comply with due process requirements at Brandon Creech’s DOSA treatment

revocation hearing, DOC also needed to show by a preponderance of the evidence the

fact of Creech’s administrative termination and those facts that supported the termination.

Creech does not argue that DOC failed to prove his administrative termination from the

DOSA treatment program. The record confirms the administrative termination.

       The DOC appeals panel also relied on sufficient evidence when affirming the

termination. The panel reviewed the contents of the records supplied by Brandon Creech

for his appeal, evidence submitted at the administrative hearing, and the audio recording

of the administrative hearing.

       Brandon Creech next argues that DOC denied him due process when it prevented

him from reviewing or retaining his own copy of the documents and evidence to be used

against him at his DOSA revocation hearing. He maintains that, due to having

insufficient access to such materials, he could not adequately prepare for his DOSA

revocation hearing. We disagree.

                                             13
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       The record reveals that the DOSA notice of allegations, hearing, rights and waiver

form Brandon Creech signed on November 1, 2021 outlined the evidence to be used

against him at his DOSA revocation hearing. The appeals panel also found DOC

administration properly served the discovery packet. At the time of the hearing, Creech

did not suggest any lack of preparation. In his personal restraint petition, Creech does not

identify any specific information denied to him that prejudiced his ability to contest the

termination.

       Brandon Creech further argues that DOC violated due process when its hearing

officer relied on nondrug related infractions as evidence at his DOSA revocation hearing,

and, when doing so, the hearing officer became biased against him. Therefore, according

to Creech, he lacked a neutral and detached hearing officer.

       The record establishes that the DOC hearing officer referenced, but did not rely

on, infractions other than Brandon Creech’s second code 762 serious violation when

affirming the revocation of his DOSA sentence. The appeals panel confirmed such.

       We note that RCW 9.94A.662(4) requires that a DOC hearing officer revoke an

offender’s DOSA sentence when the offender has been administratively terminated from

the program. The statute affords the hearing officer no discretion to continue an

offender’s DOSA sentence on his administrative termination from the program. The

record indisputably shows that Creech was administratively terminated from the DOSA

program. Thus, Creech could not have suffered prejudice.

                                             14
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

       Finally, Brandon Creech argues that DOC violated due process when the DOC

hearing officer relied on prior nondrug-related infractions he committed as evidence

supporting revocation of his DOSA sentence because he was never advised of his right to

appeal those infractions. We decline to address this contention since the record

establishes that the hearing officer did not rely on the other infractions when affirming

the revocation of Creech’s DOSA sentence. Thus, Creech suffered no prejudice.

                                      DOSA Policies

       Brandon Creech asserts, in his personal restraint petition, that DOC twice failed to

follow its own policies. First, Creech contends DOC failed to follow its own hearing

officer’s prior decision to offer him Level 3.3 treatment when it placed him in Level 2.5

treatment. Second, Creech argues that DOC terminated his DOSA sentence for nondrug

related infractions.

       A showing that a government agency failed to comply with the agency’s own rules

or regulations shows an unlawful restraint. In re Personal Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn.

App. 2d 72, 82 (2021). But, in addition, for relief under a personal restraint petition, the

petitioner must show a fundamental defect that inherently results in a complete

miscarriage of justice. In re Personal Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 148 (1994).

       Brandon Creech does not specify which policy or policies he believes DOC

violated. Bare allegations unsupported by citation to authority, references to the record,

or persuasive reasoning do not support a personal restraint petition. In re Personal

                                             15
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876, 886 (1992). While Creech provides two quotes from

two cases to support this argument in his personal restraint petition, the language of the

quotes does not assist in analyzing the arguments he asserts.

       Brandon Creech first cites In re Personal Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72

(2021) when declaring: “The DOC must accept its own hearings officers [sic] own

decision and cannot continue to retry a hearing until it obtains its desired outcome.” PRP

at 8. Wilson does not articulate such a rule. Instead, the Wilson court wrote that “DOC

cannot retry infractions on the same record until it gets the outcome it wants.” In re

Personal Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72, 88 (2021). DOC did not retry the same

infractions against Creech. Creech’s most recent DOSA revocation hearing resulted from

the August 17 infraction. It did not result from DOC retrying the code 762 serious

infraction heard by the DOC hearing officer in 2020.

       Brandon Creech next cites In re Personal Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138,

149 (1994). He provides the following quote from Cashaw: “A showing that a decision

by a government agency failed to comply with the agency’s own rules or regulations is

sufficient to show the unlawfulness of the restraint.” PRP at 8. This language is not

found in Cashaw, but can be found verbatim in Wilson, as cited above. To repeat, Creech

does not identify any regulation violated. DOC reasonably supplied Level 2.5 treatment

when Creech’s security risk placed him in a facility that did not offer Level 3.3 treatment.

                                             16
No. 39079-9-III
PRP of Creech

                                     CONCLUSION

      We deny Brandon Creech’s personal restraint petition.

      A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                             _________________________________
                                             Fearing, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________
Siddoway, J.

______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.

                                            17