State v. Devin

158 Wn.2d 157, 142 P.3d 599 (2006) · Supreme Court of Washington · August 24, 2006

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the common-law abatement rule does not require vacating a criminal conviction when the defendant dies after failing to file a timely appeal of that conviction. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ order vacating Jules Devin’s attempted-murder conviction and overruled State v. Furth insofar as it automatically abated convictions and victim-compensation orders upon a defendant’s death during a pending appeal.

Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the Court
Alexander, C.J.; Johnson, C.; Madsen, J.; Bridge, J.; Chambers, J.; Owens, J.; Fairhurst, J.; J.M. Johnson, J.
Jurisdiction
Washington
Decision date
August 24, 2006
Procedural posture
The State petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals' order vacating Jules Devin's attempted-murder conviction and dismissing his appeal after Devin died.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed the legal application and continued validity of the common-law abatement rule de novo, including whether an untimely appeal was pending at the time of the defendant's death.
Precedential value
Published Washington Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
State of Washington v. Jules Devin
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureremediesrestitutionconstitutional law

Practice areas

criminal lawappellate practicevictims' rightscriminal remediesconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Washington common-law abatement rule applied when the defendant's notice of appeal was untimely and did not challenge his conviction.
  2. Whether State v. Furth's rule automatically abating a criminal conviction and victim-compensation orders upon the defendant's death during an appeal should be overruled or limited.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating Devin's conviction and dismissing the appeal solely because Devin died.

Holdings

  1. The Furth abatement rule does not require vacation of a criminal conviction when the deceased defendant did not appeal the conviction in the manner prescribed by law. Devin's untimely notice of appeal therefore did not trigger abatement of his conviction.
  2. Furth is overruled to the extent that it automatically abates a criminal conviction and victim-compensation orders when a defendant dies during a pending appeal, regardless of the merits of the appeal or whether compensation remains owed to victims.
  3. The decision does not preclude abating financial penalties still owed to the county or State when necessary to avoid unfairly burdening a deceased defendant's heirs, and it does not preclude deciding a criminal appeal on the merits after the appellant's death when warranted.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we overrule Furth to the extent that it automatically abates convictions as well as victim compensation orders upon the death of a defendant during a pending appeal. (172)
Therefore, this court reverses the order of the Court of Appeals vacating the conviction of Jules Devin and overrules Furth as explained above. (172)

Factual background

A jury convicted Jules Devin of first degree attempted murder after he shot Jacqueline Galan in the face and neck. The superior court sentenced him to 300 months and advised him that any appeal had to be filed within 30 days. Devin filed an untimely notice of appeal nearly six months later and challenged only his sentence, not his conviction. He died before a reference hearing could determine whether the untimely filing resulted from a voluntary waiver of his appeal rights.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Devin of first degree attempted murder, and the superior court imposed a 300-month standard-range sentence. Devin filed a notice of appeal approximately six months after sentencing and sought review only of his sentence. While a Court of Appeals-ordered reference hearing concerning the untimely appeal was pending, Devin died. The Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and dismissed the appeal under State v. Furth; the Washington Supreme Court reversed that order and overruled Furth in part.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…