346 P.3d 784
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Payseno convicted in 2000 of a felony (VUCSA) which automatically revoked his firearm rights; also had a 2000 misdemeanor.
- After completing sentences, Payseno was crime-free for over five years (2000–2007).
- He later had misdemeanor convictions in 2007 and 2010 that did not themselves disqualify him from possessing firearms.
- Payseno petitioned in 2013 to restore firearm rights; the State objected because he had convictions after the initial five-year crime-free period.
- Superior court denied the petition, treating the statute as requiring the five-year crime-free period to immediately precede the petition.
- Payseno appealed; appellate court reviewed statutory ambiguity and applied the rule of lenity in his favor, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 9.41.040(4)(a)(ii)(A) requires the five-year crime-free period to immediately precede the petition or can be satisfied by an earlier five-year crime-free period | Payseno: Five consecutive crime-free years may occur at any time before petition so long as other requirements (no current charges/disqualifying convictions) are met | State: The five-year crime-free period must immediately precede the filing of the petition; intervening convictions (even non-disqualifying misdemeanors) defeat eligibility | Statute ambiguous as applied; legislative history/interpretive aids inconclusive; under rule of lenity, ambiguous criminal-related provision construed for defendant — earlier five-year crime-free period suffices in Payseno’s case; court reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Dussault, 181 Wn.2d 360 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Wn.2d 273 (primary objective to ascertain legislative intent; consider text and context)
- State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186 (use of text, context, and related provisions in interpretation)
- State v. Delgado, 148 Wn.2d 723 (unambiguous plain language controls)
- State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614 (apply statute as written when unambiguous)
- State v. Villanueva-Gonzalez, 180 Wn.2d 975 (rule of lenity applied to ambiguous criminal statutes)
- McGinnis v. State, 152 Wn.2d 639 (statute ambiguous when susceptible to reasonable differing interpretations)
- State v. Swanson, 116 Wn. App. 67 (once statutory requirements met, superior court’s role is ministerial to grant restoration)