State of Washington v. Nick Gregory Nichols
34976-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Nichols, a long-haul trucker and registered sex offender (1991 conviction), sold his Aberdeen home in 2014 and began using his friend Joseph Brown’s Vancouver apartment as his listed "fixed residence" while working out of state most of each month.
- Nichols listed Brown’s address on his Clark County sex offender registration, vehicle title, tax return, and postal records; he stored some personal items at Brown’s apartment and stayed there when in town.
- Detective Jenson’s compliance check found Nichols absent; Brown told the detective Nichols did not "live" with him, later clarifying Nichols used Brown’s address as a home base but did not have a private room or full-time household presence.
- The State charged Nichols with failure to register, arguing he lacked a statutory "fixed residence" and thus should have registered as someone without a fixed residence (requiring weekly in-person or alternative reporting).
- After a bench trial the court found Nichols guilty, entered findings concluding Brown’s apartment was not Nichols’s fixed residence because Nichols was out of state a majority of the week, and sentenced him to 21 days (with credit) and 12 months community custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nichols) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nichols had a "fixed residence" under RCW 9A.44.128(5) | Nichols registered at Brown’s apartment as a fixed residence but the State contends the apartment was not used a majority of the week as living quarters | Nichols contends he habitually used the address: stayed there when in town, kept belongings, used the address for official records, and thus had a fixed residence | Court held Nichols did not have a fixed residence because he was typically out of state a majority of the week, so the apartment did not qualify |
| Whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings | N/A (court evaluates State’s case against statutory definition) | Nichols argues the facts showed a fixed residence and relies on precedent (Stratton) | Substantial evidence supported the court’s factual findings; findings support legal conclusion of no fixed residence |
| Applicability of precedent (State v. Stratton) | State argues later statutory definition controls and distinguishes Stratton | Nichols relies on Stratton to argue similar circumstances constituted a fixed residence | Court distinguished Stratton because the legislature later defined "fixed residence" requiring majority-of-week use, making Stratton inapplicable |
| Whether conviction should be reversed on procedural or form-based grounds | N/A | Nichols notes registration form lacked statutory definition, implying ambiguity or improper notice | Court rejected challenge; statutory definition governs and form omission did not invalidate conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stratton, 130 Wn. App. 760 (2005) (addressing fixed-residence analysis under prior, undefined statutory framework)
- State v. Stevenson, 128 Wn. App. 179 (2005) (standard for appellate review of bench-trial findings)
- Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148 (1990) (unchallenged findings supported by substantial evidence treated as verities)
- State v. Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d 534 (2008) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- State v. Clark, 53 Wn. App. 120 (1988) (RAP 10.3(g) briefing requirements and when briefing defects won’t preclude review)