In Re The Detention Of A.m.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
IN RE THE DETENTION OF:
A.M.,
Appellant.
No. 87294-0-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — A.M. appeals the trial court’s order committing him for 14 days of
involuntary 	treatment 	at 	Fairfax 	Behavioral 	Health 	Hospital 	(Fairfax) 	under 	the
involuntary treatment act (ITA), chapter 71.05 RCW. A.M. argues that the court violated
his right to be present during his civil commitment hearing.
The court conducted A.M.’s commitment hearing by videoconference, with A.M.
appearing from the hospital. A.M. repeatedly sought to address the court. Unprompted,
the court asked A.M. “do you wish to stay for the hearing or do you wish to return to
your room and have your attorney tell you what happens?” 	A.M. said, “I do not follow.”
A.M.’s counsel asked to speak privately with A.M. Following a short recess, counsel for
A.M. stated that A.M. had returned to his hospital unit and “it was a little unclear on
whether or not he wished to be here.” 	Without further inquiry, the court ruled that A.M.
"apparently, has voluntarily left the courtroom . . . [and] understands that we will
proceed without him," accepting this as a knowing and voluntary "waiver of his presence
for this hearing." 	In its subsequent commitment order the court checked a box which
read, "[r]espondent has orally waived their presence to defense counsel, and the Court
accepts this waiver."

No. 87294-0-I/2
-2-
Fairfax concedes error and asks this court to vacate the 14-day commitment
order and remand to the trial court for entry of a further order consistent with this ruling.
A.M. moves this court to accept Fairfax’s concession. 	We grant A.M.’s motion and
accept Fairfax’s concession. 	Cf. In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 279, 654 P.2d 109 (1982)
(“There 	is 	no 	question 	that 	due 	process 	guaranties 	must 	accompany 	involuntary
commitment for mental disorders”); State v. Thomson, 123 Wn.2d 877, 880-82, 872
P.2d 1097 (1994) (once trial has begun in the defendant’s presence, courts must
conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether the defendant’s absence constitutes a
voluntary and knowing waiver of the constitutional right to be present); State v. Garza,
150 Wn.2d 360, 367, 77 P.3d 347 (2003) (courts must examine the totality of the
circumstances and indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver).
A.M.'s motion to accelerate the mandate under RAP 12.5(b) is also granted. The
mandate will issue two days after this opinion is filed unless the respondent objects in
writing.
Reversed and remanded.
FOR THE COURT: