Personal Restraint Petition Of: Matthew Butler, 54973-5

Butler and Coplen had a child; their relationship deteriorated after Coplen remarried.
June 4, 2013: Coplen filed a protection petition; a commissioner denied temporary and full orders for failing to identify a specific incident/date.
October 3, 2013: Coplen filed a parenting plan and moved for a temporary protection order (under former RCW 26.26.590) alleging additional facts; the superior court entered a temporary protection order that day.
Butler was later charged in district court with violating that October 3 order (by email) and with resisting arrest; a jury convicted him on those counts (some related convictions were reversed on appeal).
Butler filed a personal restraint petition arguing the October 3 order was barred by res judicata and therefore void, so he could collaterally attack it despite the collateral bar rule; the Court of Appeals denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a defendant collaterally attack a protection order in a prosecution for violating it?	Butler: collateral bar rule doesn't apply to void orders, so he can attack the order if void.	State: collateral bar rule bars collateral attacks in prosecutions except for genuinely void orders.	Collateral bar rule applies; petitioner may not collaterally attack the order here.
Was the Oct. 3 temporary protection order void because it was barred by res judicata?	Butler: the October order was barred by the earlier June denial and therefore void.	State: superior court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and authority to issue the order; res judicata does not make it void.	The order was not void—court had jurisdiction and power—so the void-order exception does not apply.

City of Seattle v. May, 171 Wn.2d 847 (discusses collateral bar rule and exception for void orders)
State v. Noah, 103 Wn. App. 29 (applies collateral bar rule to protection orders)
In re Pers. Restraint of Domingo-Cornelio, 196 Wn.2d 255 (standard for granting relief from restraint)
In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123 (extraordinary nature of collateral challenges)
In re Pers. Restraint of Sandoval, 189 Wn.2d 811 (prejudice standard for constitutional errors)
In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501 (standard for nonconstitutional errors: fundamental defect/miscarriage of justice)
Bresolin v. Morris, 86 Wn.2d 241 (defines circumstances rendering an order void)
Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 v. Mead Educ. Ass’n, 85 Wn.2d 278 (jurisdictional limits that make orders void)