In the Matter of the Postsentence Review of Shundrae Cage
Appeal from Spokane Superior Court. Docket No: 11-1-02302-9. Date filed: 01/04/2013. Judge signing: Honorable Ellen Kalama Clark.
Shundrae Armie Cage, pro se.
Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, and Ronda Larson, Assistant, for petitioner Department of Corrections.
Janet G. Gemberling (of Janet Gemberling PS ), for respondent Shundrae Cage.
Steven J. Tucker, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark E. Lindsey, Deputy, for respondent Spokane County.
AUTHOR: Robert E. Lawrence-Berrey, J. WE CONCUR: Stephen M. Brown, J., Laurel H. Siddoway, C.J.
[181 Wn.App. 590] ¶ 1 The trial court granted Shundrae Cage a postsentence furlough for a medical emergency. The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) filed an emergency motion to vacate the furlough, arguing that only DOC has authority to grant furloughs. The trial court denied the motion, concluding DOC's authority to grant furloughs is not exclusive. In this postsentence review, DOC contends the trial court lacked the authority to grant a furlough. We agree with DOC and therefore reverse.
¶ 2 Shundrae Cage was convicted of second degree assault--domestic violence, and sentenced to 13 months of confinement in the custody of DOC. His early release date was September 26, 2013, and his planned release date was September 16, 2013, pursuant to DOC's 10-day early release authority.
¶ 3 On July 31, 2013, Mr. Cage filed a motion in Spokane County Superior Court for a furlough under RCW 9.94A.728(2). He explained that his wife needed help with their other children due to serious pregnancy related complications. A note from his wife's doctor stated that she was experiencing pregnancy related heart and kidney issues and that she needed Mr. Cage to help at home with their other children. The State objected, stating that it had a " longstanding policy in our office of objecting to furloughs in the first place." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 8.
¶ 4 On August 2, 2013, the court granted Mr. Cage a temporary furlough to be served on electronic home monitoring. [181 Wn.App. 591] The order stated that the furlough was to begin at 10:00 a.m. on August 5, 2013, and end six weeks after the birth of his child.
¶ 5 As soon as DOC was aware of the furlough order, it filed an emergency motion to vacate it. At the August 9, 2013, hearing, it argued the trial court lacked statutory authority to grant a furlough, maintaining, " [f]urloughs are allowed solely under RCW 72.66.012. And that statute applies to the Secretary ...