Washington Appellate Court: Personal Restraint Petition Proper Vehicle to Challenge Community Supervision
On December 17, 2024, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II, held that a trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the state Department of Corrections (DOC) and dismissed a motion to enforce a released prisoner’s community custody condition. The Court concluded with an important warning for all state prisoners: A personal restraint petition (PRP) is the only proper vehicle to mount such a challenge.
Michael Aumack pleaded guilty in 2012 to attempted first degree child molestation and was sentenced to 43 months to life imprisonment. The trial court added a sentence of lifetime community custody. Among the conditions of supervision was a prohibition from “enter(ing) into or frequent(ing) business establishments or areas that cater to minor children without being accompanied by a responsible adult.”
Aumack was released from prison in 2016 and began supervision under community custody. In 2023, he filed a motion under his criminal case number that sought to hold DOC in contempt for “refusing to recognize his wife as a ‘responsible adult,’ thereby restricting his ability to attend certain public events.”
DOC opposed the motion, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to oversee administration of community custody conditions because DOC was not a party to the action. After holding a show-cause hearing, the trial court agreed with DOC; Aumack’s motion was denied, and he appealed.
The Court of Appeals noted that DOC is required by RCW 9.94A.704(6) to supervise offenders sentenced to a term of community custody. The question on appeal was whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over DOC due to that statutory requirement.
“A court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party if the individual or entity is not designated as a party and has not been made a party by service of process,” the Court noted, citing Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Zamora, 198 Wn. App. 44 (2017). In that case, the Court continued, “any order entered against that party is void.”
The criminal case record failed to demonstrate “that DOC was designated as a party, nor had the trial court obtained personal jurisdiction over DOC by service of process,” the Appellate Court found. DOC acknowledged that when based on express statutory authority, personal jurisdiction follows when a court imposes specific obligations upon a nonparty. Absent such authority, once a judgment and sentence is entered, the trial court “loses jurisdiction to DOC,” as held in State v. Hubbard, 1 Wn.3d 439 (2023). Moreover, no express statutory authority allows a trial court to supervise DOC’s administration of community custody conditions.
That didn’t leave Aumack without a potential remedy; as DOC conceded, he “may bring a challenge based on those particular facts through a [PRP],” as held in State v. Ortega, 21 Wn.App.2d 488 (2022). Because Aumack was in community custody, state law—RAP 16.4(b)—classifies him “under restraint.” Improper application of a community custody condition, therefore, would constitute unlawful restraint, as RAP 16.4(c)(7) provides. As a result, the proper vehicle for Aumack’s complaint was a PRP, the Court said, affirming the trial court’s order. See: State v. Aumack, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 2477 (Ct. App.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
State v. Aumack
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 2477 (Ct. App.) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |