State Of Washington, Respondent V. Cavit Mum, Appellant

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED
4/20/2020
Court of Appeals
Division |
State of Washington

IN ‘THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DIVISION ONE
Respondent,
No. 79110-9-I
V.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CAVIT MUM,
a/k/a J AVIT MUMCU,
Appellant.

DWYER, J. — Cavit Mum appeals from a supenor court order revoking his
conditional release from Westem State Hospital. Mum contends that the
supenior court erred by revoking his conditional release because the State failed
to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mum posed a substantial
danger to public safety. Because Mum assigns no error to the court’s findings of
fact, and these findings support the order revoking his conditional release, we
affirm.

I

Cavit Mum was committed for treatment at Westem State Hospital in 1993
after he was acquitted of arson in the first degree and attempted murder in the
first degree on the basis that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Mum
retumed to the community in 2003 undera conditional release. In 2017, Mum

was alrested and retumed to Westem State Hospital after he wrote letters to a

Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited matenal.

No. 79110-9-I/2
2
real estate agent and a woman who frequented the gas station at which Mum
was employed. After Mum was readmitted to Western State Hospital, the State
petitioned the court to revoke Mum’s conditional release. At the 2018 revocation
hearing, the superior court found:1
1. On three separate occasions between August and October
of 1991, the defendant Cavit Mum set fire, using gasoline, to
the house of Muazzez Eren. In January of 1993, Mr. Mum
admitted to setting all three fires, claiming he did so to drive
Eren, who Mum believed was a witch, away and thus
preventing her witchcraft from further effecting his life. Mr.
Mum was charged with three counts of attempted Murder in
the First Degree and three counts of Arson in the First
Degree. On November 3, 1993, Mr. Mum was acquitted by
reason of insanity of all counts and, having [to] be found a
substantial danger to others and presenting a substantial
likelihood of committing felonious acts jeopardizing the
public safety or security, was committed to the care and
custody of the Department of Social and Health Services for
treatment at Western State Hospital.
2. On September 17, 2003, the court found Mr. Mum could be
released conditionally without substantial danger to other
persons or a substantial likelihood of committing felonious
acts jeopardizing public safety or security. At that time, the
court ordered Mr. Mum released upon such conditions as
were necessary to protect the safety and the security of the
public and provide for the care and treatment of the
defendant. He was conditionally released at that time to the
WSH Community Program. Later, in October, 2005, Mr.
Mum released to a community placement. Mr. Mum was
readmitted to WSH in October of 2006 and returned to
community placement in March, 2007.
3. In September, 2017, the court denied Mr. Mum’s petition for
a final release pursuant to RCW 10.77.200. At that time, the
court found that Mr. Mum continued to suffer from a mental
disease or defect and to exhibit delusions and paranoia.
The court also found Mr. Mum continued to present, as a
result of this mental disease or defect, a substantial danger
to other persons, or a substantial likelihood of committing
1 As Mum does not assign error to any of the superior court’s findings of fact, we accept
these findings as verities. State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997).

No. 79110-9-I/3
3
criminal acts jeopardizing public safety or security unless
kept under further control by the court or other persons or
institution.
4. In August and September, 2017, Mr. Mum was in contact
with and wrote letter[s] to two members of the public. This
contact and these letters lead to his arrest and subsequent
readmission to WSH. Although the contact and the letters
did not constitute any crimes or a per se violation of Mr.
Mum’s conditional release; the content of the contact and the
letters drew into question the state of Mr. Mum’s mental
health and revealed its deterioration.
5. Pending [the revocation] hearing, WSH doctors and staff
have had significant opportunity to observe and interact with
Mr. Mum. Mr. Mum is currently diagnosed with
Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, and currently exhibits
paranoid, delusional beliefs revolving around themes of
witches and witchcraft, despite being medicated to manage
these symptoms of psychosis. Mr. Mum’s beliefs that his
previous therapist, Linda Salazar, is performing witchcraft on
Mr. Mum and that his attorney has been influenced by
witchcraft have significantly increased since his placement in
the community. Besides the testimony and reports of WSH
doctors and staff, these delusional, paranoid beliefs are
evidenced in the multiple letters received by the court from
Mr. Mum wherein Mr. Mum speaks about individuals who are
performing witchcraft upon him and include Mr. Mum’s
request the court execute two individuals he has identified as
witches.
The court subsequently found that Mum’s mental condition had
deteriorated, and that he had failed to manage his illness—a violation of the
conditions of his release. The court also found that the State had established, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that Mum posed a substantial danger to
others. The superior court cited to the following evidence to support this finding:
a. Mr. Mum committed his original crimes of attempted murder
and arson because he believed the victim of those crimes
was a witch and was performing witchcraft upon him;

No. 79110-9-I/4
4
b. Mr. Mum currently exhibits similar delusional beliefs,
specifically that his prior therapist, Linda Salazar, who has
not worked at WSH or with Mr. Mum for more than 8 years,
is a witch performing witchcraft upon him. Mr. Mum also
believes a second individual is a witch performing witchcraft
upon him and his attorney is under the influence of
witchcraft;
c. Mr. Mum has sent the court many letters talking about
witchcraft, identifying Ms. Salazar and another person as a
witch, and specifically, in one letter, asking the court to
execute these two individuals;
d. Mr. Mum believes that his current therapist, Lenise
McClellan, is not being truthful with him, is working against
his improvement, and is preventing his mail from being sent;
e. The unrebutted opinion of Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Means is that
Mr. Mum presents a danger to others if he is released from
WSH;
f. Dr. Ehlers’s belief that Mr. Mum is a danger to others is
based upon, among other things, that:
a. Mr. Mum[’s] current symptoms are very similar to his
original symptoms at the time of his crimes, and
b. Mr. Mum’s current delusions are more dangerous
than at the time of his crimes because Mr. Mum has
incorporated his mental health treatment providers
into these delusions.
Consequently, the court revoked Mum’s conditional release and ordered
him recommitted to Western State Hospital.
II
Mum contends that the superior court erred by revoking his conditional
release. This is so, Mum asserts, because “[t]he State failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mum is currently a substantial danger to
public safety, as required to revoke his conditional release and commit him

No. 79110-9-I/5
5
involuntarily to Western State Hospital.” Mum also avers that the State must
demonstrate that Mum “threatened or harmed” someone to prove that he is
dangerous. Because Mum assigned no error to any of the superior court’s
findings of fact—which support the superior court’s order revoking Mum’s
conditional release—and no case or statutory authority demands an explicit
threat or actual harm to prove dangerousness, Mum has failed to establish that
the superior court erred by revoking his conditional release.
Our Rules of Appellate Procedure plainly state that “[a] separate
assignment of error for each finding of fact a party contends was improperly
made must be included with reference to the finding by number.” RAP 10.3(g).
We treat unchallenged findings as verities on appeal. State v. Stenson, 132
Wn.2d 668, 697, 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). We must determine if the findings of fact
support the superior court’s conclusions of law. Perry v. Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
123 Wn. App. 783, 792, 98 P.3d 1264 (2004) (citing City of Tacoma v. State, 117
Wn.2d 348, 361, 816 P.2d 7 (1991)). We review de novo challenges to the
superior court’s conclusions of law. Perry, 123 Wn. App. at 792.
A court may order the conditional release of a person it committed for
treatment following a not guilty by reason of insanity acquittal. RCW 10.77.150.
The court may subsequently revoke a conditional release on a showing that the
released person has violated the conditions of the release. RCW 10.77.190(2),
(4). Additionally, and to comply with constitutional due process requirements, the
court must also find that the conditionally released person is both mentally ill and
poses a substantial danger to public safety. State v. Bao Dinh Dang, 178 Wn.2d

No. 79110-9-I/6
6
868, 875-76, 879-80, 312 P.3d 30 (2013) (quoting O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422
U.S. 563, 575, 95 S. Ct. 2486, 45 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1975)). The State must prove
these facts by a preponderance of the evidence. Bao Dinh Dang, 178 Wn.2d at
882 (citing Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 367, 103 S. Ct. 3043, 77 L. Ed.
2d 694 (1983)).
In his brief, Mum does not assign error to any finding of fact. Therefore,
we accept the superior court’s findings as verities. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d at 697.
The superior court found “that Mr. Mum is a substantial danger to public safety.”
This finding of fact, along with the superior court’s other unchallenged findings
that Mum was mentally ill and had violated the conditions of his release, support
its order revoking Mum’s conditional release. Mum does not establish that the
superior court erred.
Furthermore, even if Mum had properly assigned error to the findings, no
case or statutory authority requires the State to establish that the conditionally
released person explicitly threatened or actually harmed someone to prove
dangerousness. The law only requires the State to prove substantial
dangerousness to public safety by a preponderance of the evidence, with no
gloss on how it should do so. Bao Dinh Dang, 178 Wn.2d at 882. We reject
Mum’s effort to add such a requirement to the law where none exists. 2
2 Additionally, we note that the record establishes that Mum sent letters to the superior
court explicitly requesting the court to order the execution of several people he believed to be
witches, stating that “the court should contact FBI . . . . These 3 should die.” This plainly
constitutes threatening behavior.

No. 79110-9-]/7

Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

Qual.