State Of Washington v. Wendy Granath
401 P.3d 405
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wendy Granath was convicted in King County District Court of cyberstalking and violating a no-contact order; both were designated domestic violence crimes.
- The court imposed a 24-month suspended sentence with 24 months supervised probation and financial obligations; the judgment included a no-contact condition toward the victim.
- The district court separately issued a postconviction domestic violence no-contact order under RCW 10.99.050 but left the expiration date blank, so the form defaulted to five years (Nov. 8, 2017).
- Granath completed her sentence and paid fines; the district court closed the case in December 2014. Granath moved to vacate the separate no-contact order as expired when her sentence ended; the district court and superior court denied relief.
- Central legal question: whether a no-contact order recorded under RCW 10.99.050(1) continues to be criminally enforceable after the underlying sentence (and its no-contact condition) has terminated.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding RCW 10.99.050(1) requires the recorded no-contact order to reflect the no-contact condition actually imposed and the recorded order therefore expires when that sentence condition expires.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a postconviction no-contact order under RCW 10.99.050(1) remains enforceable after the underlying sentence ends | Granath: the recorded no-contact order is only meant to mirror the sentence condition and expires when the sentence (or its no-contact condition) terminates | State: the recorded order can persist up to a statutory maximum (effectively five years here) and survive beyond sentence completion to protect victims | The court held the recorded order must reflect the sentence actually imposed and terminates when the sentence's no-contact condition ends |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106 (2007) (permitted crime-related no-contact prohibitions to run up to statutory maximum for the offense)
- State v. Anaya, 95 Wn. App. 751 (1999) (no-contact order entered as a condition of pretrial release ends when charges are dismissed)
- State v. Schultz, 146 Wn.2d 540 (2002) (describing statutory authorization for no-contact orders at multiple stages of prosecution)
- State v. W.S., 176 Wn. App. 231 (2013) (juvenile-court no-contact order enforcement after juvenile turns 18; discussed relation to Armendariz)
- State v. Weatherwax, 188 Wn.2d 139 (2017) (rule of lenity applies to criminal statutes ambiguous on duration)