Opinion
No. 52059-8-I.
Filed: February 9, 2004.
Appeal from Superior Court of Snohomish County. Docket No: 02-8-01283-3. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/14/2003.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Alexander Dickey (Appearing Pro Se), Green Hill School 375 S.W. 11th Avenue, Chehalis, WA 98532.
Christopher Gibson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St. Seattle, WA 98122.
Frank Shigaihisa Homsher, Attorney at Law, 914 164th St. SE # 332, Mill Creek, WA 98012-6385.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Thomas Marshal Curtis Snohomish County Pros Ofc, 3000 Rockefeller Ave # 504 Everett, WA 98201-4060.
Scott Michael Lord, Law Office of Scott M Lord PO Box 1418, Everett, WA 98206.
A.D. appeals from his juvenile court conviction of minor in possession and/or consumption of liquor, contending that the court failed to enter sufficiently detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the conviction as required under the law. We reject this contention, and affirm.
FACTS
One evening, police were dispatched to an area in Marysville to investigate the report of a fight involving a group of juveniles. Eyewitnesses identified 16-year-old A.D. as one of the participants in the fight. They also indicated that A.D. and others had been drinking `booze.' Two partially consumed bottles of liquor were found at the scene. When the investigating officer contacted A.D., he was slurring his speech and had the strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The incident led to A.D. being charged with minor in possession and/or consumption of liquor in violation of RCW 66.44.270(2)(a). The matter proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing based solely upon agreed documentary evidence contained in the police reports. The juvenile court found A.D. guilty. In so doing, the court entered the following findings of fact regarding the charged offense: This court considered the agreed documentary evidence, applying the standard that the state must prove all elements of the offense(s) by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court makes the following findings of fact:
That on or about the 17th day of June, 2002, the respondent did unlawfully consume, acquire and have in his possession intoxicating liquor, said respondent being under 21 years of age;
That the acts occurred in the State of Washington.
This appeal followed.
DECISION
A.D. contends that the written findings of fact and conclusion of law entered by the juvenile court fail to satisfy the requirements of JuCR 7.11(d). Under that court rule, the juvenile court is required to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case that is appealed. These findings and conclusions must address each essential element of the offense charged. State v. Souza, 60 Wn. App. 534, 527, 805 P.2d 237 (1991). Adequate written findings are necessary to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Mewe, 84 Wn. App. 620, 621-22, 929 P.2d 505 (1997).
A.D. admits that the court's written findings in this case address the elements of minor in possession and/or consumption under RCW 66.44.270(2)(a). Despite this admission, he argues the formal findings are deficient because they do not `include a single fact relating to an element of the offense.' Thus, A.D. argues this case should be remanded `for entry of missing findings of fact and conclusions of law.' We disagree.
Brief of Appellant at 5.
Brief of Appellant at 6.
While the court's findings are rather cryptic, they are sufficient given the offense charged and the nature of the proceedings below. After all, it is important to note the context in which those findings were entered. `Findings need only address all ultimate facts and material issues.' Mewe, 84 Wn. App. at 622. Here, there were no material issues of disputed fact. The juvenile court's determination of guilt was based on agreed documentary evidence. Core findings of fact were entered on each essential element of the minor in possession and/or consumption charge. These formal findings, although meager, satisfy the minimum requirements of JuCR 7.11(d) and Souza. Moreover, the juvenile court in its oral decision discussed in detail the evidence it relied on to find A.D. guilty. The juvenile court's oral decision may be used to supplement its written findings of fact. State v. Parker, 81 Wn. App. 731,737, 915 P.2d 1174 (1996). There is no need to remand for entry of additional findings. Affirmed.
AGID and BAKER, JJ., concur.