Supreme Court of the State of Washington 

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 84952-8
Title of Case: State v.Tucker
File Date: 02/10/2011
Oral Argument Date:

Appeal from King County Superior Court
Honorable Joan E Dubuque



Counsel for Petitioner(s)
Vanessa Mi-jo Lee
Attorney at Law
1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
Seattle, WA, 98101-3647

Counsel for Respondent(s)
Ann Marie Summers
King County Prosecutor's Office
516 3rd Ave Ste W554
Seattle, WA, 98104-2362

Prosecuting Atty King County
King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor
W554 King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA, 98104


STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 8 4 9 5 2 - 8
v. En Banc
Petitioner. Filed February 10, 2011

PER CURIAM -- At issue is whether the State initiated a proceeding
to revoke Natasha Tucker's deferred disposition before the juvenile court's
jurisdiction over her expired. We grant Tucker's petition for review and hold
that the State failed to timely institute revocation proceedings.
Tucker was 14 years old when she threw a rock through a friend's
living room window while arguing over an iPod. The State charged her with
residential burglary and malicious mischief. Tucker agreed to plead guilty, and
she received a deferred disposition. The juvenile court ordered her to pay
$2,630.40 in restitution as a term of community supervision. Tucker largely
complied with the terms of supervision, but by the end of the deferred period,
she had not fully paid restitution. The court therefore extended the deferred
period for one more year, until November 30, 2008, and set a review hearing
for November 7, 2008.
On the day of the review hearing, Tucker's community supervision

No. 84952-8 Page 2

officer submitted a report to the court stating that Tucker had completed all
conditions except full payment of restitution. Noting that Tucker would exhaust
her 24-month time frame for completing her deferred disposition on December
13, 2008, the officer recommended that the matter be set for a revocation
hearing after December 13 should Tucker be unable to prove by then that she
had paid restitution.
The court's minutes for the November 7, 2008, hearing state that
"JPC will move to revoke deferred. Parties agree to strike today's hearing and
set for revocation." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 42. The next court appearance was
set for December 15, 2008. On that date, the court continued the matter to
December 30, 2008, because Tucker intended to move to dismiss the charges
based on completion of her deferred disposition. The probation department
also submitted a second report on December 15 noting that Tucker did well on
community supervision but that she and her family were unable to pay the
balance of the restitution. The report stated that the department had no
recommendation and would defer to the court but that if the court revoked the
deferred disposition, the department would recommend no further sanctions.
On December 30, the State moved to continue the hearing because
it was not prepared to argue Tucker's motion to dismiss the charges. The trial
court continued the matter to January 6, 2009. At that hearing, Tucker argued
that the State had failed to move to revoke her deferred disposition before the
deferral period ended, depriving the court of jurisdiction and giving it no choice
but to dismiss the charges. The trial court ruled that the report the probation
office filed on November 7 initiated revocation proceedings before the end of
the supervision period. It therefore denied Tucker's motion to dismiss. At the
ensuing revocation hearing, the court revoked the deferred disposition.

No. 84952-8 Page 3

The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that the
November 7 report instituted revocation proceedings. State v. N.S.T., 156 Wn.
App. 444, 232 P.3d 584 (2010). Tucker petitioned for this court's review.
A juvenile court loses jurisdiction to enforce violations of custody
conditions when the period of community custody terminates, unless a
violation proceeding was instituted before termination. State v. Todd, 103 Wn.
App. 783, 789-90, 14 P.3d 850 (2000). A juvenile's failure to comply with the
terms of a deferred disposition is determined by a judge "upon written motion
by the prosecutor or the juvenile's juvenile court community supervision
counselor." RCW 13.40.127(7). The superior court criminal rules apply to
juvenile offense proceedings when the juvenile court rules are not
inconsistent. JuCR 1.4(b). The criminal rules provide that CR 7(b) governs
motions in criminal cases. CrR 8.2. Under CR 7(b), a motion must state with
particularity the relief sought and the grounds for relief. And the rule prescribes
the proper form of a motion.
We disagree with the courts below that the November 7 report by
Tucker's community supervision officer properly instituted revocation
proceedings against her. The report was plainly not a motion to adjudicate
compliance with Tucker's restitution obligation; it stated only that "should
Natasha be unable to provide verification of payment of her remaining
financial obligations, probation recommends that this matter be set out for
revocation." CP at 57. The document did not meet the terms of CR 7(b) by
seeking current relief and stating the basis for relief. There was no timely
written motion asking the court to adjudicate whether Tucker violated a
condition of her supervision. The juvenile court therefore lost jurisdiction when
the period of supervision expired without the State filing a motion to revoke

No. 84952-8 Page 4

Tucker's deferred disposition.
We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court to
vacate Tucker's convictions and dismiss the case with prejudice.1

1 RCW 13.40.127(9) provides that at the conclusion of a deferred disposition,
and upon a finding of full compliance, the court will vacate the conviction and dismiss
the case with prejudice.