Respondent Mark Mattson was an incarcerated sex offender and sought relief from personal restraint on a claim that his plan for release to community custody for good behavior was unlawfully denied by the Department of Corrections (DOC), under policy directive by which the DOC excludes from consideration release plans submitted by sex offenders whom the department determines meet the criteria for civil commitment as sexually violent predators (SVP).  The court of Appeals granted Mattson’s personal restraint petition (PRP) and ordered the DOC to consider Mattson’s release plan on its merits, holding that Mattson has a protected liberty interest in early release to community custody under RCW §9.94A.728(2), and that the DOC does not have the authority to categorically refuse to consider Mattson’s release plan on its merits.  The DOC petitioned for discretionary review to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Questions:

Did the Court of Appeals err in its opinion that Mattson had a protected liberty interest in early release to community custody pursuant to RCW §9.94A.728(2)?

Conclusion:

Justice Barbara Madsen’s opinion for the Court held tht RCW §9.94A.728(2) does not establish a protected liberty in early release to community custody.  The DOC had the statutory authority to determine eligibility standards for sex offenders for release to community custody, and therefore had the authority to deny Mattson’s eligibility plan for such release on the basis of prior psychological examinations.  Because Mattson was found to not meet the eligibility criteria, the DOC had no duty under the statute or DOC policy to evaluate the merits of Mattson’s release plan.  Finding that the Court of Appeals erred, the Court reversed the decision and denied Mattson’s PRP.