State of Washington v. Cecilia Ramos

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
CECILIA RAMOS,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 35382-6-III
(consolidated w/
No. 35383-4-III)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ENNELL, A.C.J. — Cecilia Ramos appeals the trial court’s orders revoking
her residential drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) and imposing sanctions.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Cecilia Ramos pleaded guilty to four counts of second degree possession of stolen
property, one count of possession of stolen mail, one count of possession of a controlled
substance, and one count of second degree identity theft. The trial court agreed to
provide Ms. Ramos a residential DOSA, and shortly thereafter Ms. Ramos began 90 days
of intensive inpatient treatment.
Ms. Ramos successfully completed inpatient treatment. However, within two
months of discharge, she accumulated multiple DOSA violations. The violations
included failure to follow verbal directives and to participate in outpatient treatment.
FILED
MARCH 12, 2019
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

Nos. 35382-6-III; 35383-4-III
State v. Ramos
2
The court held a hearing at which Ms. Ramos admitted to the violations. The court then
imposed a sanction of 30 days’ confinement.
One week after the DOSA sanction hearing, Ms. Ramos reported to her
community corrections officer (CCO). The CCO requested a urine sample for testing,
but Ms. Ramos failed to provide a sample. The Department of Corrections filed another
notice of violation, and the trial court held a hearing regarding the State’s petition to
revoke Ms. Ramos’s DOSA. The court concluded that Ms. Ramos violated the terms
of her DOSA, revoked it, and sanctioned Ms. Ramos by sentencing her to 38 months’
incarceration.
Ms. Ramos appeals.
ANALYSIS
Ms. Ramos argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her DOSA
sentences because she was merely unable to provide a urine sample within the one-hour
time frame and this was only her second violation.
Decisions on revocation of a suspended sentence are within the trial court’s
discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. McCormick,
166 Wn.2d 689, 705-06, 213 P.3d 32 (2009). Discretion is abused when the trial court’s
decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds. Id. at 706.

Nos. 35382-6-III; 35383-4-III
State v. Ramos
Here, Ms. Ramos had accumulated eight DOSA violations prior to revocation.
With respect to the final violation, Ms. Ramos was provided liquids and time to provide a
urine sample. Yet she failed to comply. 	She also expressed reluctance about
participating in outpatient treatment. 	While the trial court could have provided Ms.
Ramos an additional opportunity to complete the terms of her DOSA, it was not required
to do so. The trial court acted well within its discretion when it revoked Ms. Ramos' s
DOSA based on her continued inability to comply with her DOSA obligations.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's orders revoking Ms. Ramos's DOSA and imposing sanctions
are affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in
the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
Q_
Pennell, A.CJ.
WE CONCUR:
3