STATE v. D.W., 57721-2-I (Wash.App. 6-11-2007)

No. 57721-2-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
June 11, 2007.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 05-8-00541-4, Martha V. Gross, J. Pro Tem., entered January 19, 2006.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

D.W. appeals her conviction of fourth degree assault. She contends the State failed to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the case should be dismissed because she was prejudiced by the juvenile court’s failure to enter written findings and conclusions. D.W. does not show prejudice requiring dismissal. We remand for the entry of written findings and conclusions and do not reach the merits of D.W.’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

BACKGROUND
During an altercation with a fellow junior high school student, D.W. (d.o.b. 6/20/91) struck M.M. She was charged with fourth degree assault. D.W. claimed self-defense. In an oral ruling, the juvenile court found D.W. guilty of fourth degree assault, rejecting the defense because D.W. used excessive force. The court did not enter written findings or conclusions. D.W. appeals.

DISCUSSION
The record substantially supports the court’s oral ruling, but an oral ruling is not binding and does not facilitate appellate review. State v. Head, 136 Wn.2d 619, 622, 964 P.2d 1187 (1998). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of D.W.’s challenge to the sufficiency of the State’s evidence proving the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

JuCR 7.11(d) requires the juvenile court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a case that is appealed. The proper remedy for failure to enter written findings is remand, unless the defendant shows prejudice, in which case the remedy is to dismiss. State v. Royal, 122 Wn.2d 413, 423, 858 P.2d 259 (2005). D.W. contends she is prejudiced by the absence of findings because the court’s oral ruling is unclear, and she fears the written findings and conclusions will be tailored to meet the sufficiency of the evidence issue raised in this appeal. Also, she will likely have completed the community service ordered by the court.

We will not infer prejudice from delay in the entry of written findings. Head, 136 Wn.2d at 625. The court’s oral ruling is clear, expressly finding that D.W. used more force than was reasonable. Report of Proceedings (Jan. 17, 2006) at 172 ([D.W.]’s force “went well beyond anything that was necessary to stop [M.M.]’s behavior.”). Should the written findings appear to be tailored, D.W. may renew her prejudice argument. Head, 136 Wn.2d at 625 n. 3 (prejudice from tailoring “could be shown only, of course, after remand and the entry of findings”). Presently, the argument is entirely hypothetical.

The fact that D.W. may have already completed her community service by the time the written findings are entered does not show prejudice. The legality of D.W.’s punishment is not at issue here, and many appeals are decided after the sentence has been served.

D.W. has shown no prejudice thus far. Dismissal is therefore not appropriate. We remand for entry of findings and conclusions in accord with JuCR 7.11(d).