Robert D. Grott v. State of Washington

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 59777-2
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

June 24, 2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II ROBERT D. GROTT, No. 59777-2-II

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Respondent.

MAXA, J. – Robert Grott appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition for a writ of

habeas corpus without a hearing. Grott contends that the denial without a hearing violated a

habeas corpus statute, RCW 7.36.120.

We hold that the superior court did not err when it denied Grott’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus without a hearing because the petition was filed in the wrong county. Therefore,

the court did not have jurisdiction over the petition under article IV, section 6 of the Washington

Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s denial of Grott’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus.

FACTS

Grott currently is serving a sentence of 603 months pursuant to a second degree murder

and seven first degree assault convictions. Grott is incarcerated at Stafford Creek Corrections

Center in Aberdeen, which is located in Grays Harbor County. No. 59777-2-II

In February 2024, Grott filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus identifying the State

of Washington as the defendant. The petition stated that Grott was being restrained by Jason

Bennett at Stafford Creek. The petition was filed in Pierce County Superior Court.

The superior court considered the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without oral

argument and denied the petition.

Grott appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

ANALYSIS

Grott argues that the superior court violated RCW 7.36.120 by denying his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus without holding a hearing. The State argues that the superior court

correctly denied the petition because Grott filed it in the wrong county and the Pierce County

Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We agree with the State.

RCW 7.36.010 states, “Every person restrained of his or her liberty under any pretense

whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and

shall be delivered therefrom when illegal.” RCW 7.36.120 states, “The court or judge shall

thereupon proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause, and if no legal cause be

shown for the restraint or for the continuation thereof, shall discharge the party.”

However, article IV, section 6 of the Washington Constitution defines the jurisdiction of

superior courts. It states that “Said courts and their judges shall have power to issue. . . writs of

habeas corpus, on petition by or on behalf of any person in actual custody in their respective

counties.” When a superior court receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a petitioner

outside of its jurisdiction, it must deny the petition for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

Conway v. Cranor, 37 Wn.2d 303, 304-05, 223 P.2d 452 (1950) (holding that where a prisoner

was held in custody in Walla Walla, the only superior court having jurisdiction over a habeas

2 No. 59777-2-II

petition was in Walla Walla County); see also Dress v. Dept. of Corrections, 168 Wn. App. 319,

332, 279 P.3d 875 (2012) (under article IV, section 6, “habeas corpus petitions must be brought

in the county in which a petitioner is in custody”).

Grott filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus when was serving his sentence in

Stafford Creek Corrections Center, located in Grays Harbor County. But he filed his petition in

Pierce County Superior Court rather than in Grays Harbor County Superior Court. Because the

Pierce County Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the court correctly denied the

petition without a hearing.

Accordingly, we hold that the superior court did not err in denying Grott’s petition for a

writ of habeas corpus.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the superior court’s denial of Grott’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

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

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, J.

We concur:

CRUSER, C.J.

VELJACIC, A.C.J.