* State Of Washington, Petitioner V. Deborah Peoples, Respondent

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
v.
DEBORAH PEOPLES,
Respondent.
No. 86111-5-I
DIVISION ONE
PUBLISHED OPINION
DÍAZ , J. — In 2014, Deborah Peoples successfully petitioned the district
court for entry of an order of deferred prosecution (Order). 	In 2022, following
alleged violations of the Order, Peoples filed a motion to “extend” the court’s
“jurisdiction and the authority to continue to supervise [her] deferred prosecution
for more than five years.” 	The district court denied her motion, stating it did not
have “authority to extend [its] jurisdiction beyond five years,” noting that, “[i]f I
could, I would.” The superior court reversed, finding the district court “did have the
authority to extend” as “the statute does not limit the trial court's jurisdiction to only
five years.” On appeal, the parties continue to present the question as whether an
order of deferred prosecution is limited to a definite time period and whether a court
may “extend” such an order beyond that term.
We believe the proper framing of the issues before us is, when the district
court was presented with alleged violations of its Order, whether RCW 10.05.090
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/2
2
required the court to either continue Peoples’ treatment plan or remove her from
the deferred prosecution. 	We hold the district court abused its discretion by not
recognizing or exercising its discretion under RCW 10.05.090 to either continue
Peoples’ treatment or “remove” her from deferred prosecution. All other questions
are immaterial to this matter.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In December 2013, the State charged Peoples with driving under the
influence (DUI), a gross misdemeanor under RCW 46.61.502(5). 	In April 2014,
Peoples petitioned the Whatcom County District Court for a deferred prosecution
to treat her alcohol use disorder. 	The same day, the district court accepted her
petition, approved the treatment plan, and entered its Order.
Between 2015 and 2021, numerous probation officers notified the court that
Peoples had violated various conditions of the Order. The court ordered Peoples
to appear each time.
In February 2022, Peoples filed a “Motion to Extend Supervision and
Maintain Deferred Prosecution” (Motion). 	The district court denied the Motion,
convicted Peoples of DUI, and entered a judgment and sentence. 	Peoples
appealed that decision to the Whatcom County Superior Court under RALJ 9.1.
In November 2023, the superior court reversed the district court. 	The
superior court explained that, “while RCW 10.05.120 precludes dismissal of a
deferred prosecution before the expiration of five years[,] the plain language of the
statute does not limit the trial court’s jurisdiction to only five years.” 	The State
successfully sought discretionary review before this court.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/3
3
II. 	ANALYSIS
“‘Deferred prosecution is designed to encourage treatment of culpable
people whose conduct is caused by a treatable condition, like alcoholism.’” City of
Bremerton v. Tucker, 126 Wn. App. 26, 32, 103 P.3d 1285 (2005) (emphasis
omitted) (quoting City of Kent v. Jenkins, 99 Wn. App. 287, 289-90, 992 P.2d 1045
(2000)). 	Through this process, petitioners “are given an opportunity to avoid
conviction if they successfully complete treatment.” Jenkins, 99 Wn. App. at 290.
“Deferred prosecutions are governed by chapter 10.05 RCW.” 	State v.
Skrobo, 17 Wn. App. 2d 197, 201, 485 P.3d 333 (2021). A “‘deferred prosecution
is a creature of statute’” and, thus, “‘the District Court’s authority . . . must be
measured by statutory law.’” Id. (quoting Abad v. Cozza, 128 Wn.2d 575, 580, 911
P.2d 376 (1996)) (considering the imposition of a court’s conditions of deferred
prosecution); see also State v. Wright, 54 Wn. App. 638, 640, 774 P.2d 1265
(1989) (seeking “direct authority in RCW 10.05 for the imposition of jail time as a
condition of deferred prosecution”); State v. Friend, 59 Wn. App. 365, 797 P.2d
539 (1990) (striking the imposition of costs as part of a deferred prosecution).
“We review a district court decision under RALJ 9.1, performing the same
function as the superior court.” Skrobo, 17 Wn. App. 2d at 200. 	When a “court’s
authority . . . is discretionary, we review the court’s ruling for an abuse of
discretion.” 	Thornock v. Lambo, 14 Wn. App. 2d 25, 31, 468 P.3d 1074 (2020)
(considering the authority to initially grant a deferred prosecution). This matter also
presents a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. 	State v.
Ervin, 169 Wn.2d 815, 820, 239 P.3d 354 (2010).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/4
4
The parties frame the questions in this matter as whether or not (1) Peoples’
deferred prosecution was for a determinate time or “term,” and (2) the district court
had jurisdiction or authority to “extend” that term. We disagree with that framing.
When we interpret a statute, “we look to the text of the statutory provision
in question, as well as ‘the context of the statute in which that provision is found,
related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.’” 	Ervin, 169 Wn.2d at
820 (quoting Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 920–21, 969
P.2d 75 (1998)). 	Nowhere in chapter 10.05 RCW is the word “term” defined or
used in the way the parties do. 	Nor does chapter 10.05 RCW directly address a
court’s authority to “extend” the term, if any, of deferred prosecutions. We should,
instead, consider, as “[t]he surest indication of legislative intent,” “the language
enacted by the legislature, so if the meaning of a statute is plain on its face we
‘give effect to that plain meaning.’” 	Id. (quoting Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell &
Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)).
On these facts, the resolution of this matter may be found in the plain
language of RCW 10.05.090. 	That provision sets forth, in pertinent part, a three-
step process. First, “[i]f a petitioner . . . fails or neglects to carry out and fulfill any
term or condition of the petitioner’s treatment plan . . ., the . . . agency administering
the treatment . . . shall immediately report such breach to the court, the prosecutor,
and the petitioner or petitioner’s attorney.” RCW 10.05.090. 	There is no dispute
that the probation officers provided such notice several times here.
Second, the “court upon receiving such a report shall hold a hearing to
determine whether the petitioner should be removed from the deferred prosecution
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/5
5
program.” 	RCW 10.05.090; State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wn. App. 652, 658, 94
P.3d 407 (2004) (“RCW 10.05.090 requires a court to conduct a hearing, after
notice”). 	Again, there is no dispute that, upon receipt of each notice of violation,
the court ordered Peoples to appear and, in fact, conducted a hearing on the final
notice.
Third, and crucially, RCW 10.05.090 mandates that the “court shall either
order that the petitioner continue on the treatment plan or be removed from
deferred prosecution.” 	(Emphasis added). 	In other words, RCW 10.05.090
“requires a court . . . to determine whether to terminate a participant from the
program when it receives notice of a breach of a deferred prosecution agreement.”
Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wn. App. at 658 (citing RCW 10.05.090).
The word “shall . . . operates to create a duty” but “in each case the word is
to be treated as mandatory or permissive, depending upon the intent of the
legislature as determined by the ordinary rules of construction.” 	Wash. State
Liquor Control Bd. v. Wash. State Pers. Bd., 88 Wn.2d 368, 377, 561 P.2d 195
(1977). 	Under a plain reading of RCW 10.05.090, we hold the word “shall”
operates to create a duty on the court to “either order” the petitioner “continue” on
the plan “or be removed.” 	On the merits, RCW 10.05.090 leaves that binary
decision—and the grounds on which that decision may be based—wholly to the
court’s discretion, unless another provision militates against or eliminates a court’s
discretion.1 	Thus, the proper question is whether the district court made one of
1 For example, if a petitioner is “subsequently convicted of a similar offense that
was committed while the petitioner was in a deferred prosecution program, upon
notice the court shall remove the petitioner’s docket from the deferred prosecution
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/6
6
the two choices contemplated by RCW 10.05.090.
Here, the district court stated it was “not aware of any provision in any
statute” that “gives the court authority to extend this jurisdiction beyond five years.
If I could, I would.” 	(Emphasis added). 	In other words, as we understand its
reasoning, the district court believed it could not continue Peoples’ treatment on
the belief its jurisdiction expired after five years.
We hold the district court abused its discretion by failing to recognize and
exercise its discretion under RCW 10.05.090 to either continue Peoples’ treatment
or “remove” her from deferred prosecution. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wn. App. at 658.
A trial court abuses its discretion by “completely failing to recognize its discretion.”
In re Kennedy, 200 Wn.2d 1, 16, 513 P.3d 769, 776 (2022). 	And a “trial court
abuses its discretion when,” among other reasons, “it fails to exercise its discretion,
such as when it fails to make a necessary decision.” State v. Stearman, 187 Wn.
App. 257, 265, 348 P.3d 394 (2015); see also Thornock, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 31 (“A
trial court also abuses its discretion when it makes a reasonable decision but
applies the wrong legal standard or bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the
law.”). 	The district court unilaterally relinquished the option to continue Peoples’
treatment plan and thus did not recognize its obligation to make that binary
file and the court shall enter judgment.” RCW 10.05.100 (emphasis added); State
v. Higley, 78 Wn. App. 172, 186, 902 P.2d 659 (1995). 	Or, “[t]hree years after
receiving proof of successful completion of the two-year treatment program . . . but
not before five years following entry of the order of deferred prosecution pursuant
to a petition . . ., the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner.”
RCW 10.05.120(1) (emphasis added). Neither party contends RCW 10.05.100 or
.120 required the court, on the facts before it, to remove Peoples from deferred
prosecution or to dismiss the charges, respectively.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/7
7
decision.
As we hold the plain meaning of RCW 10.05.090 is clear, we need not
consider secondary or subordinate methods of statutory interpretation, such as a
review of legislative history. See, e.g., Ervin, 169 Wn.2d at 820; see also Glacier
Nw. Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 32 Wn. App. 2d 189, 201, 555 P.3d 896 (2024)
(declining 	to 	use 	“secondary 	principles 	of 	statutory 	construction 	when 	our
interpretation of the legislative intent of the statute based on its plain language is
so clear”).
As in this court’s holding in State v. Vinge, we also “need not determine
what the outer limits of the district court’s jurisdiction over a deferred prosecution
might be.” 	59 Wn. App. 134, 140, 795 P.2d 1199 (1990). 	We also need not
determine whether a term could be set, explicitly or implicitly, as part of a deferred
prosecution and whether there is theoretically some maximum term for deferred
prosecutions. 	See Hearst Commc’ns, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493,
504, 115 P.3d 262 (2005) (“[w]e do not interpret what was intended to be written
but what was written.”); see also Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Gregoire, 162 Wn.2d 284,
307, 174 P.3d 1142 (2007) (“‘Principles of judicial restraint dictate that if resolution
of an issue effectively disposes of a case, we should resolve the case on that basis
without reaching any other issues that might be presented.’”) (quoting Hayden v.
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 141 Wn.2d 55, 68, 1 P.3d 1167 (2000)).
III. 	CONCLUSION
We reverse the district court’s order denying Peoples’ Motion, vacate the
March 2022 judgment and sentence, and remand to the district court to conduct
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 86111-5-I/8
8
an RCW 10.05.090 hearing consistent with this opinion.
WE CONCUR:
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.