Washington State Courts - Judicial Information System

Search | Site Map |

eService Center

38 - Transfer code for judgment field

Request Status Summary

Request Status

Authorized

Request Detail

Requestor Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	09/29/2010

Recommended Endorser:
	District and Municipal Court Management Association

Request Type:	Change or Enhancement
Which Systems are affected?	Judicial Information System (JIS)
Business Area:	Plea and Sentencing
Communities Impacted:	Appellate Court Judges Appellate Court Clerks Superior Court Judges County Clerks Superior Court Administrators CLJ Judges CLJ Managers Family and Juvenile Law Judges Juvenile Court Administrators State Agencies Public and Other Users
Impact if not Resolved:	High
Impact Description:
If not resolved, the DCH could be viewed incorrectly and the defendant might be prejudiced because it appears there are more cases than actually are.

What is the Business Problem or Opportunity

This is unresolved change request #132 originated by the Lacey Violations Bureau

The endorsement group reviewed this request and found it a high priority. However, we think that it may be a request that goes to the "codes committee." We are not sure who would get this information to the codes committee but felt the communication needed to get started.

"Cases that are transferred from one court to another show up on the DCH twice and can be confused as two cases rather than just one that is being transferred. The finding and judgment code shows as D (dismissed) which is inaccurate. A more accurate code needs to be added to PLS to correctly denote the situation of a transferred case. Also, the current situation requires a 'dismissal reason code' to be entered and there is no accurate one to assign. If a new code for judgment on transferred caes is used, it should be tied to the Case Disposition code of 'TR' (transferred.) Caseload counts need to be considered."

Expected Benefit:

A true depiction of the DCH would show.

Endorsement Detail

Endorsing Committee
	District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	09/29/2010

Endorsing Action:	Endorsed
Endorser’s Explanation and Comments
This is an unresolved change request that was discussed by the endorsement group at an earlier meeting.

AOC Analysis Detail

Analysis Date:	01/07/2011
Request Rationale
Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans:	Yes
Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards:	Yes
Breadth of Solution Benefit:	Wide
Cost Estimates
Cost to Implement?	658 hours
Feasibility Study needed?	No
Court Level User Group
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Approving Authority	Administrator

Request Summary:
This request is for a finding/judgment code of T (Transferred) for CLJ cases. This code will allow courts to more accurately record case history.
Business Impacts:
This code would allow court staff to more accurately record the history of cases that are transferred from one court to another. This code would also more accurately reflect the status of cases on the Defendant Criminal History (DCH) screen. This would also benefit the members of the public, as the results produced on the public case search web site will be subject to less misinterpretation.
Summary of Proposed Solution
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would create a CLJ finding/judgment code for issues of cases that are transferred. This code will behave in a similar manner to the CLJ finding/judgment code of D (Dismissed).
Proposed Solution
AOC would create a finding/judgment code of T (Transferred) in the JDMTYPE (Judgment Type) table. The court would use the code on an issue when a CLJ case is transferred to another court. This code will act in a manner consistent with the finding/ judgment code of D (Dismissed). JIS screens and reports will be modified to correctly interpret and process based on this new code. The code T was approved by the Codes Committee on October 14, 2010.

Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail

Endorsing Committee
	District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	01/10/2011

Endorsing Action:

Endorsed

Court Level User Group Decision Detail

CLUG	Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Chair of Group	Cynthia Marr
Date of Decision	01/11/2011
Decision
Decision to Recommend for Approval	Unamimously recommended to the approving authority
Priority Processing Status	Prioritized
Ranking
Request Priority	11
Request Importance	Medium

Scoring Detail	Score / Possible
Business Value	7 / 10
Relative Priority	6 / 10
Cost	3 / 5
Complexity/Level of Effort	6 / 10
Risk	5 / 5
Benefit / Impact	4 / 5
Impact of Doing Nothing	2 / 5
Total Score	33 / 50

Implementation Detail

Analysis Date:	03/03/2011
Implementation Stage	Authorized

Comments:
This request was authorized by Jeff Hall on Feb 3, 2011.