State Of Washington, V. Donnica Denise Booker
Opinion
NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits (for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of the court. The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential (unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 82595-0-I )
Respondent, )
)
v. )
) PUBLISHED OPINION DONNICA DENISE BOOKER, )
)
Appellant. )
BOWMAN, J. — Donnica Denise Booker appeals the trial court’s order that she comply with biological sampling for DNA1 identification after she pleaded guilty to one count of felony assault. Booker argues that because she has prior felony convictions, the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory (WSPCL) already has her DNA, so the court should have ordered that she does not have to submit a duplicate sample. We conclude that RCW 43.43.754 directs law enforcement agencies to collect an individual’s DNA on conviction of a qualifying offense and vests the agencies, not the court, with discretion whether to collect duplicate biological samples. We affirm.
FACTS
Booker shot Saryi Thomas on June 7, 2018. The State charged Booker with first and second degree assault with firearm sentencing enhancements. On
1 Deoxyribonucleic acid.
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 82595-0-I/2
January 25, 2021, Booker pleaded guilty to one count of first degree assault with no firearm enhancement.
On April 2, 2021, the court sentenced Booker to 102 months’
confinement.2 The court also ordered Booker to “have a biological sample collected for purposes of DNA identification analysis and . . . fully cooperate in the testing, as ordered in APPENDIX G.” Under Appendix G, Booker must “cooperate with [law enforcement] in providing a biological sample."3 Because Booker had two previous felony convictions, the court waived payment of the $100 DNA collection fee.
Booker appeals.
ANALYSIS
Booker argues that the court erred when it ordered her to “have a biological sample collected” for DNA analysis because her “felony history assures that her DNA sample is already in the database.” The State argues Booker’s claim is moot. In the alternative, the State contends that RCW 43.43.7544 gives the court discretion to order collection of duplicate biological samples.
2 Booker’s standard range sentence was 129 to 171 months of confinement. But both parties recommended the trial court impose an exceptional sentence downward.
3 Appendix G also directs a defendant that if they are out of custody, they must “promptly
contact the King County Sheriff’s Office to make arrangements for the test to be conducted within 15 days.”
4 We consider the 2020 statute, which was in effect in 2021 when the court convicted
Booker. State v. Bennett, 154 Wn. App. 202, 208-09, 224 P.3d 849 (2010) (citing State v. Brewster, 152 Wn. App. 856, 859-61, 218 P.3d 249 (2009)). The 2020 version of RCW 43.43.754 is in effect until July 1, 2022. LAWS OF 2021, ch. 215, § 149.
No. 82595-0-I/3
Mootness
The State argues Booker’s appeal is moot. According to the State, the Department of Corrections (DOC) collected Booker’s DNA shortly after sentencing, so this court can no longer provide her effective relief.5 Booker acknowledges that her appeal is “technically moot” but asks us to review her claim as a matter of public interest.
An issue is moot if we can no longer provide effective relief for the claimed legal error. In re Det. of Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983). We generally dismiss an appeal that raises only moot issues. Sorenson v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). But we may review moot issues of continuing and substantial public interest. In re Pers. Restraint of Mattson, 166 Wn.2d 730, 736, 214 P.3d 141 (2009).
When considering whether a case presents issues of continuing and substantial public interest, we look to (1) “ ‘the public or private nature of the question presented,’ ” (2) “ ‘the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers,’ ” and (3) “ ‘the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.’ ” State v. Huckins, 5 Wn. App. 2d 457, 463, 426 P.3d 797 (2018)6 (quoting State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 907, 287 P.3d 584 (2012)). We also evaluate the level of genuine adverseness and the quality of
5 The State also argues that we should decline to review Booker’s claim under RAP
2.5(a) because she did not raise it below. But we can consider sentencing errors addressed for the first time on appeal, even if the error is not jurisdictional or constitutional. State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d 535, 545-47, 919 P.2d 69 (1996). A defendant can challenge an illegal or erroneous sentence for the first time on appeal. State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477, 973 P.2d 452 (1999).
6 Internal quotation marks omitted.
No. 82595-0-I/4
advocacy of the issues, as well as the likelihood that the issue will escape review because the facts of the controversy are short lived. Id.
Applying these factors, we exercise our discretion to address Booker’s claim because it raises an issue likely to reoccur, and to give helpful guidance to public officers. DNA Collection Statute
Booker argues the sentencing court should have ordered that she need not provide a biological sample because WSPCL already has her DNA. We disagree.
We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Velasquez, 176 Wn.2d 333, 336, 292 P.3d 92 (2013). When interpreting a statute, we first look to its plain language and meaning to determine legislative intent. Id. We discern a statute’s plain meaning from the text of the provision, the context of the statute in which the provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole. State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 192, 298 P.3d 724 (2013). As much as a statute is ambiguous, we may look to legislative history for assistance in discerning legislative intent. Id. at 192-93.
Under RCW 43.43.754(1)(a), “[a] biological sample must be collected for purposes of DNA identification analysis from . . . [e]very adult or juvenile individual convicted of a felony” or other qualifying offense.7 The statute directs law enforcement agencies to collect DNA samples from individuals convicted of
7 The term “qualifying offense” refers to all adult and juvenile felony and misdemeanor
convictions listed in RCW 43.43.754(1)(a)(i) through (xi). The statute also requires collection of DNA for all individuals required to register as sex or kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. RCW 43.43.754(1)(b).
No. 82595-0-I/5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State Of Washington, V. Donnica Denise Booker (State Of Washington, V. Donnica Denise Booker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.