Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
September 29, 2020
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53765-6-II
Respondent,
v.
C.J.H., UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J.—C.J.H. appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana 40 grams or less,
arguing that the juvenile court erred by not complying with JuCR 7.11(d) because it failed to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 21 days of receiving C.J.H.’s notice of
appeal. The State concedes that the juvenile court erred and suggests that we remand to the
juvenile court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the juvenile
court has now entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, this case is now
moot, and we dismiss the appeal.1
FACTS
On April, 15, 2019, C.J.H.’s vice principal found C.J.H. with marijuana and contraband
paraphernalia in her purse while on school property. The State charged C.J.H. with violation of
the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, specifically RCW 69.50.4014, possession of marijuana
40 grams or less.
1 We stayed this case by order on July 29, 2020. We now order the stay lifted. No. 53765-6-II
C.J.H. moved to suppress the marijuana and contraband paraphernalia removed from her
purse. The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress and issued oral findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
After the juvenile court denied the motion to suppress, C.J.H. agreed to a stipulated trial.
On June 27, 2019, the juvenile court found C.J.H. guilty of possession of marijuana 40 grams or
less and sentenced her to 12 months community supervision and 5 days work crew. The juvenile
court made an oral ruling, but did not enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. On
July 2, 2019, C.J.H. filed a notice of appeal.
On January 3, 2020, C.J.H. filed her opening brief with this court. C.J.H’s only issue on
appeal is that the juvenile court failed to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law after
receiving a timely notice of appeal. C.J.H. requested that we remand her case to the juvenile court
to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law or, in the alternative, dismiss her conviction.
On February 19, 2020, the juvenile court entered written findings of fact and conclusions
of law for both its denial of the motion to suppress and its finding of guilt on the charge of
possession of marijuana 40 grams or less.
On March 12, 2020, the State conceded that the juvenile court erred in failing to comply
with JuCR 7.11(d) because it failed to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law within
21 days of receiving C.J.H.’s notice of appeal. The State argued that C.J.H. was not prejudiced by
the juvenile court’s failure to comply with JuCR 7.11(d), and therefore, the appropriate remedy is
to remand with instructions to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We stayed this case by order on July 29, 2020, pending supplemental briefing based on the
trial court’s subsequent entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant’s
counsel notified the court that counsel has “reviewed the entered findings and conclusions in the
2 No. 53765-6-II
context of all possible issues on appeal. I find no additional issues and thus will not be filing any
additional briefing.” Letter from Lisa E. Tabbut, Appellant’s Attorney, to Derek Byrne, Clerk of
Court, Wash. Court of Appeals, Div. II (Sept. 17, 2020), State v. C.J.H., No. 53765-5-II.
ANALYSIS
C.J.H. argues that the juvenile court did not comply with JuCR 7.11(d) by failing to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law after receiving her notice of appeal. The juvenile
court has now entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with JuCR
7.11(d); therefore, C.J.H.’s appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
JuCR 7.11(d) requires:
Written Findings and Conclusions on Appeal. The court shall enter written findings and conclusions in a case that is appealed. The findings shall state the ultimate facts as to each element of the crime and the evidence upon which the court relied in reaching its decision. The findings and conclusions may be entered after the notice of appeal is filed. The prosecution must submit such findings and conclusions within 21 days after receiving the juvenile’s notice of appeal.
(boldface omitted) (emphasis added). The plain language of JuCR 7.11(d) does not require the
juvenile court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law within any time period. The
alleged 21 day requirement that C.J.H. relies on for her appeal and the State relies on for its
concession is not a requirement imposed on the juvenile court. Rather, JuCR 7.11(d) only requires
the juvenile court to enter the written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case that is
appealed and allows the juvenile court to enter such written findings of fact and conclusions of
law after the notice of appeal is filed. The juvenile court did that here.
A case is basically moot if the court cannot provide the relief originally sought or can no
longer provide effective relief. State v. Cruz, 189 Wn.2d 588, 597, 404 P.3d 70 (2017); In re Det.
of Nelson, 2 Wn. App. 2d 621, 628, 411 P.3d 412, review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1029 (2018);
3 No. 53765-6-II
Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617, 622, 45 P.3d 627 (2002). Generally, a moot
case will be dismissed. Cruz, 189 Wn.2d at 597.
Here, C.J.H.’s only issue on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to enter written findings
of fact and conclusions of law under JuCR 7.11(d), and she requested a remand of her case to the
juvenile court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because the juvenile
court has entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, we can no longer provide C.J.H.
effective relief because C.J.H. has obtained the relief sought. Thus, this appeal is moot.
C.J.H. relies on State v. Witherspoon, 60 Wn. App. 569, 571, 805 P.2d 248 (1991), to
support her alternative argument for dismissal of her conviction. In Witherspoon, the trial court
never entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after receiving the appellant’s notice of
appeal. 60 Wn. App. at 571. On appeal, the court acknowledged that remand may be the
appropriate remedy in some cases, but concluded that Witherspoon would suffer obvious prejudice
if the court remanded. Id. at 572. The court articulated two reasons to support its conclusion that
the appellant would suffer “obvious prejudice by remand.” Id. First, there is an appearance of
unfairness by allowing findings of fact and conclusions of law to be entered after the appellant has
framed the issues in heropening brief. Id. Second, if the appellant is in custody, the undue delay
created by remand creates “real prejudice” to the appellant that “is not due to any fault of [the
appellant] or [her] counsel” because she will be held in custody longer. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
September 29, 2020
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53765-6-II
Respondent,
v.
C.J.H., UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J.—C.J.H. appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana 40 grams or less,
arguing that the juvenile court erred by not complying with JuCR 7.11(d) because it failed to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 21 days of receiving C.J.H.’s notice of
appeal. The State concedes that the juvenile court erred and suggests that we remand to the
juvenile court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the juvenile
court has now entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, this case is now
moot, and we dismiss the appeal.1
FACTS
On April, 15, 2019, C.J.H.’s vice principal found C.J.H. with marijuana and contraband
paraphernalia in her purse while on school property. The State charged C.J.H. with violation of
the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, specifically RCW 69.50.4014, possession of marijuana
40 grams or less.
1 We stayed this case by order on July 29, 2020. We now order the stay lifted. No. 53765-6-II
C.J.H. moved to suppress the marijuana and contraband paraphernalia removed from her
purse. The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress and issued oral findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
After the juvenile court denied the motion to suppress, C.J.H. agreed to a stipulated trial.
On June 27, 2019, the juvenile court found C.J.H. guilty of possession of marijuana 40 grams or
less and sentenced her to 12 months community supervision and 5 days work crew. The juvenile
court made an oral ruling, but did not enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. On
July 2, 2019, C.J.H. filed a notice of appeal.
On January 3, 2020, C.J.H. filed her opening brief with this court. C.J.H’s only issue on
appeal is that the juvenile court failed to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law after
receiving a timely notice of appeal. C.J.H. requested that we remand her case to the juvenile court
to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law or, in the alternative, dismiss her conviction.
On February 19, 2020, the juvenile court entered written findings of fact and conclusions
of law for both its denial of the motion to suppress and its finding of guilt on the charge of
possession of marijuana 40 grams or less.
On March 12, 2020, the State conceded that the juvenile court erred in failing to comply
with JuCR 7.11(d) because it failed to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law within
21 days of receiving C.J.H.’s notice of appeal. The State argued that C.J.H. was not prejudiced by
the juvenile court’s failure to comply with JuCR 7.11(d), and therefore, the appropriate remedy is
to remand with instructions to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We stayed this case by order on July 29, 2020, pending supplemental briefing based on the
trial court’s subsequent entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant’s
counsel notified the court that counsel has “reviewed the entered findings and conclusions in the
2 No. 53765-6-II
context of all possible issues on appeal. I find no additional issues and thus will not be filing any
additional briefing.” Letter from Lisa E. Tabbut, Appellant’s Attorney, to Derek Byrne, Clerk of
Court, Wash. Court of Appeals, Div. II (Sept. 17, 2020), State v. C.J.H., No. 53765-5-II.
ANALYSIS
C.J.H. argues that the juvenile court did not comply with JuCR 7.11(d) by failing to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law after receiving her notice of appeal. The juvenile
court has now entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with JuCR
7.11(d); therefore, C.J.H.’s appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
JuCR 7.11(d) requires:
Written Findings and Conclusions on Appeal. The court shall enter written findings and conclusions in a case that is appealed. The findings shall state the ultimate facts as to each element of the crime and the evidence upon which the court relied in reaching its decision. The findings and conclusions may be entered after the notice of appeal is filed. The prosecution must submit such findings and conclusions within 21 days after receiving the juvenile’s notice of appeal.
(boldface omitted) (emphasis added). The plain language of JuCR 7.11(d) does not require the
juvenile court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law within any time period. The
alleged 21 day requirement that C.J.H. relies on for her appeal and the State relies on for its
concession is not a requirement imposed on the juvenile court. Rather, JuCR 7.11(d) only requires
the juvenile court to enter the written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case that is
appealed and allows the juvenile court to enter such written findings of fact and conclusions of
law after the notice of appeal is filed. The juvenile court did that here.
A case is basically moot if the court cannot provide the relief originally sought or can no
longer provide effective relief. State v. Cruz, 189 Wn.2d 588, 597, 404 P.3d 70 (2017); In re Det.
of Nelson, 2 Wn. App. 2d 621, 628, 411 P.3d 412, review denied, 190 Wn.2d 1029 (2018);
3 No. 53765-6-II
Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617, 622, 45 P.3d 627 (2002). Generally, a moot
case will be dismissed. Cruz, 189 Wn.2d at 597.
Here, C.J.H.’s only issue on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to enter written findings
of fact and conclusions of law under JuCR 7.11(d), and she requested a remand of her case to the
juvenile court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because the juvenile
court has entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, we can no longer provide C.J.H.
effective relief because C.J.H. has obtained the relief sought. Thus, this appeal is moot.
C.J.H. relies on State v. Witherspoon, 60 Wn. App. 569, 571, 805 P.2d 248 (1991), to
support her alternative argument for dismissal of her conviction. In Witherspoon, the trial court
never entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after receiving the appellant’s notice of
appeal. 60 Wn. App. at 571. On appeal, the court acknowledged that remand may be the
appropriate remedy in some cases, but concluded that Witherspoon would suffer obvious prejudice
if the court remanded. Id. at 572. The court articulated two reasons to support its conclusion that
the appellant would suffer “obvious prejudice by remand.” Id. First, there is an appearance of
unfairness by allowing findings of fact and conclusions of law to be entered after the appellant has
framed the issues in heropening brief. Id. Second, if the appellant is in custody, the undue delay
created by remand creates “real prejudice” to the appellant that “is not due to any fault of [the
appellant] or [her] counsel” because she will be held in custody longer. Id. Accordingly, the court
reversed and dismissed the case. Id.
Witherspoon is distinguishable. The trial court in Witherspoon never entered written
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here, the juvenile court has entered written findings of
fact and conclusions of law, which is the relief C.J.H. sought. Additionally, the appearance of
unfairness issue addressed in Witherspoon is not present here because the only issue C.J.H. raised
4 No. 53765-6-II
on appeal is that the juvenile court failed to comply with JuCR 7.11(d) when it did not enter written
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Finally, there is no prejudice because, unlike Witherspoon
who was detained throughout the entire appellate process, C.J.H. was sentenced to community
supervision and is not being detained during the appellate process.
Here, because the juvenile court has entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law
and C.J.H. has obtained the relief requested, the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss C.J.H.’s
appeal.
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.
Lee, C.J. We concur:
Worswick, J.
Maxa, J.