Nixon — Court affirms LRA-placement process and rejects 45-day trial deadline

Case
In the Matter of the Detention of Aron Nixon
Court
Washington Court of Appeals, Division II
Judge
Che, J.; Price, A.C.J.; Glasgow, J.
Date Decided
September 29, 2026
Docket No.
60552-0-II
Topics
Sexually violent predators; conditional release; statutory interpretation; less restrictive alternatives
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Aron Nixon was civilly committed as a sexually violent predator in 2021 and placed at the Department of Social and Health Services’ Special Commitment Center. Following his 2024 annual evaluation, the DSHS secretary’s designee authorized Nixon to petition for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative (LRA) under RCW 71.09.090(1)(b).

Nixon nevertheless sought to proceed based on his own proposed LRA placement and requested a conditional-release trial within 45 days. The trial court instead directed DSHS to identify a qualifying placement within 90 days or certify its unsuccessful efforts, and declined to set a trial within 45 days. DSHS later identified a placement, and Nixon ultimately agreed to conditional release under that plan.

The Court’s Holding

The court affirmed. Under the plain language of RCW 71.09.090, Nixon’s petition had to proceed under subsection (1)(b) because he had the secretary’s designee’s authorization to petition for conditional release. He could not invoke subsection (2)(a) to pursue his own proposed placement at the outset of that authorized-petition process.

The court also held that subsection (1)(b) does not require the trial court to conduct a hearing within 45 days after an LRA placement is proposed. It requires the court, within 45 days, to order a hearing. Although the timing issue was moot after Nixon’s release, the court addressed it as a matter of continuing and substantial public interest.

Key Takeaways

  • An SVP petition authorized by the DSHS secretary’s designee proceeds under RCW 71.09.090(1)(b).
  • Under that process, DSHS first must identify a qualifying LRA placement or certify that it could not do so within 90 days.
  • The 45-day provision requires an order setting a hearing, not completion of the hearing or trial within 45 days.

Why It Matters

The decision clarifies the sequence for conditional-release petitions when DSHS has authorized an LRA petition. It also rejects reading the statute as imposing a 45-day speedy-trial deadline, while preserving the statutory requirement that courts promptly order a hearing after a placement is proposed.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top