In the Matter of the Detention of: J.B.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Detention of:
J.B.
)
)
)
)
No. 37016-0-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, C.J. — J.B. appeals an expired1 order committing her to involuntary
treatment, arguing the superior court failed to hold a timely probable cause hearing. J.B.’s
arguments on appeal were not raised in the trial court and do not involve any of the
exceptions to error preservation set forth at RAP 2.5(a). We decline review and therefore
affirm the commitment order.
BACKGROUND
On July 22, 2019, at 10:30 p.m., J.B. was detained pursuant to a 72-hour
emergency detention order. On July 25, a petition was filed to extend detention up to
14 days. A court hearing was held in the matter on the morning of July 26. At the hearing,
J.B. was represented by counsel.
1 Due to the potential of adverse collateral consequences, an expired involuntary
commitment order is not moot. In re Det. of M.K., 168 Wn. App. 621, 625, 279 P.3d 897
(2012).
FILED
JANUARY 5, 2021
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 37016-0-III
In re Det. of J.B.
2
Although more than 72 hours had passed since J.B.’s initial detention, J.B.’s
attorney did not object to the timing of the court’s hearing. Instead, counsel argued the
petition on its merits. The trial court determined J.B. met the criteria for a 14-day
involuntary commitment. J.B. timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
J.B. argues the involuntary detention petition should have been dismissed because
the trial court failed to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of the initial
detention, as required by RCW 71.05.240(1). We decline review, as this issue was not
preserved.
An unpreserved error will be reviewed as a matter of right in three circumstances:
lack of jurisdiction, failure to establish facts upon which relief can be granted, or a
manifest constitutional error. RAP 2.5(a). J.B. does not acknowledge RAP 2.5(a) or claim
application of any of the foregoing three circumstances. While we have discretion to
review unpreserved errors outside the circumstances listed in RAP 2.5(a), we rarely do so.
This case does not warrant an exception to our general practice. The delay in J.B.’s
hearing was brief and it did not result in any apparent prejudice. The record lacks any
suggestion that the 72-hour hearing requirement has been routinely disregarded by the
court or any of J.B.’s detention facilities. We therefore decline review under RAP 2.5(a).

No. 37016-0-III
In re Det. of J.B.
3
CONCLUSION
The order of commitment is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in
the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Siddoway, J.
______________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.