Background
Marcus Abbe, now known as Jazmine Anne Jazper, was civilly committed in 2001 as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. In 2021 and 2022, a Department of Social and Health Services secretary designee authorized Jazper to petition for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (LRA), identifying the Pierce County Secure Community Transition Facility as the proposed placement.
Jazper petitioned in 2023 but sought to litigate a privately owned LRA placement instead. The trial court ruled that because the secretary designee had authorized the petition, it proceeded under RCW 71.09.090(1)(b), under which DSHS had primary responsibility to identify a placement. DSHS timely proposed the SCTF placement. The State then obtained summary judgment ordering Jazper’s conditional release to that placement after concluding it could not prove at trial that the LRA was against Jazper’s interests or inadequately protected the community.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that RCW 71.09.090(2)(a), which permits a committed person to petition for conditional release without the secretary’s approval, is unavailable when the secretary or designee has authorized a petition. In that circumstance, the petition proceeds under RCW 71.09.090(1)(b), and the committed person may propose a placement only if DSHS fails to identify a qualifying placement within 90 days.
The court also held that CR 56 summary judgment was not inconsistent with chapter 71.09 proceedings on these facts. The State could seek summary judgment even though the requested judgment conditionally releasing Jazper favored her petition, because the State determined it could not meet its burden at trial. Finally, Jazper did not show entitlement to a continuance: counsel never expressly requested one in response to the summary-judgment motion.
Key Takeaways
- A secretary-authorized conditional-release petition proceeds under RCW 71.09.090(1)(b), not the independent-petition route in subsection (2)(a).
- DSHS has the primary role in developing an LRA placement and a committed person may propose one under subsection (1)(b) only after DSHS fails to timely identify a qualifying placement.
- Summary judgment may resolve an LRA proceeding when the State cannot meet its burden to oppose release, and a continuance must actually be requested and supported.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a first-impression interpretation of Washington’s post-2021 LRA process for sexually violent predators. A person authorized by DSHS to seek conditional release cannot bypass DSHS’s placement process merely because they prefer another placement.
It also confirms that ordinary summary-judgment procedures can apply in chapter 71.09 conditional-release cases when consistent with the statutory scheme, avoiding an evidentiary trial the State cannot substantively support.