In re Personal Restraint Petition of Dalluge

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that an adult criminal court lacked jurisdiction over Amel Dalluge after amended charges eliminated automatic adult-court jurisdiction without a juvenile-court decline hearing. The court further held that Dalluge's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the jurisdictional issue on direct appeal. The petition was granted and the matter was remanded for a de novo Dillenburg hearing to determine whether juvenile jurisdiction should have been declined.

Holdings

1. The petition was not barred by RCW 10.73.090 because the judgment and sentence were not rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
2. Absent automatic decline, an actual juvenile-court decline hearing, or a valid waiver confirmed through a substitute Dillenburg hearing, the adult criminal court lacks jurisdiction over a juvenile proceeding.
3. The decline-hearing requirement was not waived merely by Dalluge's silence or failure to request remand; waiver required either a juvenile-court decline hearing or a substitute Dillenburg hearing, and the recognized waiver circumstances involved intentional deception.
4. Dalluge received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise the meritorious issue that the adult trial court should have remanded the case for a decline hearing, and Dalluge was prejudiced by that omission.
5. Because Dalluge was over 18, the proper remedy was remand to superior court for a de novo Dillenburg hearing on whether declination of juvenile jurisdiction would have been appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dalluge's personal restraint petition was barred by RCW 10.73.090 because it was filed more than one year after the judgment became final.
2. Whether the adult criminal court lacked jurisdiction after the State amended the information to charges that no longer triggered automatic adult-court jurisdiction without a juvenile-court decline hearing.
3. Whether the absence of a decline hearing could be waived by Dalluge's failure to object or request remand.
4. Whether Dalluge was prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise the adult court's lack of jurisdiction on direct appeal.
5. What remedy was appropriate for the failure to conduct a decline hearing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded