## Facts

- David Quiroz and Clark Haas, juveniles, previously resolved misdemeanor charges through diversion agreements administered by juvenile probation/diversion units.
- Later, each pleaded guilty to new offenses and was sentenced under Washington’s Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, which calculates a sentencing range using current offense seriousness and prior criminal history.
- The sentencing courts counted the prior diversion matters in the defendants’ criminal history scores, increasing their maximum confinement and other sanctions (e.g., supervision, community service, fines).
- In the diversion process, probation officers reviewed written diversion forms with the juveniles; the forms:
  - identified the charges,
  - advised of a right to consult an attorney free of charge before choosing diversion or court,
  - advised that those who believed they were innocent should consult counsel, and
  - warned that diversion could increase a future detention sentence.
- Each juvenile also signed a written waiver-of-counsel form stating an understanding of how an attorney could help and a choice not to consult counsel.
- Quiroz and Haas moved to void their prior diversion agreements, arguing inadequate opportunity to consult counsel, insufficient notice of charges, and that diversion should be treated like a conviction requiring full criminal-procedure protections; Quiroz also raised an equal protection challenge based on diversion’s later sentencing effect.
- The trial courts denied the motions, found the counsel waivers knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and imposed sentences that included the diversions in criminal history; the consolidated appeal followed.

## Issues

1. Whether the diversion agreements were constitutionally or statutorily invalid for lack of adequate notice of charges, inadequate advisement/opportunity regarding counsel and trial rights, or insufficient disclosure of possible future sentencing consequences.
2. Whether juvenile diversion proceedings must be treated as the equivalent of convictions or criminal prosecutions such that full constitutional protections (including mandatory counsel) are required at the diversion stage.
3. Whether counting diversion agreements in later sentencing violates equal protection because a juvenile who accepts diversion may receive a longer later sentence than one who pleaded guilty to the original charges.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts’ rulings and sentences.
- The court held the diversion agreements were valid and properly included in the defendants’ criminal history for later sentencing.
- The court rejected the claim that diversion is equivalent to a conviction requiring the full set of protections applicable to criminal prosecutions.
- The court rejected Quiroz’s equal protection challenge to the statutory scheme allowing diversion history to affect later sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile diversion is a voluntary, contractual alternative to prosecution and is not an adjudication of guilt or the equivalent of a conviction, even if it may affect later sentencing.
- Due process is satisfied when the juvenile receives clear notice of the charged offenses and is informed of the right to consult counsel (including free counsel where provided) before electing diversion.
- A waiver of counsel in the diversion context is valid if it is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, as shown by written advisements and execution of waiver forms.
- Prior diversion matters may be used in calculating criminal history under a structured juvenile sentencing statute when the juvenile was warned that diversion can increase future detention.
- A statutory sentencing scheme that counts diversion history does not violate equal protection where it applies uniformly to similarly situated juveniles and rests on a rational sentencing framework.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the use of juvenile diversion agreements to increase later juvenile sentencing ranges because the juveniles were informed of the charges, advised of the availability of counsel and the option to proceed in court, warned of potential future sentencing consequences, and validly waived counsel; treating diversion history as part of criminal history also did not violate equal protection.


State v. Quiroz, 733 P.2d 963 (Wash. 1987)