State v. PrayState v. Pray
Gerald Pray, a convicted sex offender, is required to register with the county sheriff each time he changes his residence. He abandoned his home in King County and lived in three temporary residences in Bellingham for approximately 10 days. During that time, he failed to register with the Whatcom County Sheriff, and was convicted of failing to register. He appeals his conviction, claiming that he did not establish a “residence” in Whatcom County and therefore was not required to register. We find there was sufficient evidence that Pray established a residence in Bellingham and therefore had a duty to register with the sheriff. We also find that the court‘s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law until after Pray filed his opening brief on appeal does not warrant remand. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence.
Facts
Gerald Pray was convicted of rape of a child in the second degree,
Pray stayed with a friend upon his arrival in Bellingham. CCO Peterson deemed the friend‘s residence to be inappropriate because she had a 14-year-old daughter living at home, and Pray was not allowed to have unsupervised contact with minors. On November 5, Pray met with Bellingham CCO Margie Flink and he remained in daily contact with her while he was in Bellingham. He informed CCO Flink that he had moved to the Villa Inn on or about November 5. On
Although CCO Flink and CCO Peterson reminded Pray of his duty to register with each change of address, and although he acknowledged that he had that duty, Pray failed to register with the sheriff while he was at any of his three residences in Bellingham. Instead, he falsely assured CCO Flink that he had in fact registered at the first two addresses. On November 13, he was arrested for failure to register pursuant to
Pray waived his right to a jury trial. He was convicted on February 2, 1998 of failure to register as sex offender. He was sentenced to serve 10 days in jail. He received credit for one day served, and the remaining nine days were converted to community service. Pray appealed his conviction. The court did not enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law until November 13, 1998, after Pray had filed his opening brief. Pray moved to supplement his assignments of error on April 28, 1999 by assigning error to some of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, but asserted no new arguments.
Discussion
Registration Requirement
As a convicted sex offender, Pray must register his address with the sheriff of his county of residence.
The purpose of the sex offender registration statute is to assist law enforcement agencies’ efforts to protect their communities against reoffense by convicted sex offenders. Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 401. Registration provides law enforcement agencies with an address where they can contact a sex offender.
1 a the act or fact of abiding or dwelling in a place for some time ... 2 a (1) the place where one actually lives ... (2) a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from a place of temporary sojourn or transient visit.
WEBSTER‘S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED 1931
Black‘s Law Dictionary defines “residence” as:
Personal presence at some place of abode with no present intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined period ... but not necessarily combined with design to stay permanently.
BLACK‘S LAW DICTIONARY at 1308-09 (Sixth Edition 1990).
In State v. Pickett, 95 Wash.App. 475, 975 P.2d 584 (1999), the court found that a homeless convicted sex offender did not have a “residence” and therefore could not register his address with the sheriff. In that case, the sex offender did not know where he would sleep each night and thus he could not give the sheriff an address where he could be contacted. In contrast, on any given day between November 3 and November 13, Pray knew the place he would sleep that night, even though that place changed several times during that period. At each place he stayed in Bellingham, he intended to return to that place and did not plan to leave on any definite date. Rather, he intended to stay in each place for an undetermined period, that is, until he found a permanent residence.
Pray argues that only a “permanent” residence arrangement triggers the registration requirement. We disagree. Under the definitions above, a temporary habitation may be a residence. Pray abandoned his residence in Seattle, and had indefinite though temporary living arrangements. Based on the evidence, a rational trier of fact could find that Pray established a “residence” in Bellingham, and thus was required to register with the Whatcom County Sheriff.
Failure to Enter Findings of Fact
The court entered its
The purpose of entering findings is to enable an appellate court to review the issues raised on appeal. State v. McGary, 37 Wash. App. 856, 861, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984). “[F]indings and conclusions may be submitted and entered even while an appeal is pending.” Id. The belated filing of findings, although disfavored, does not constitute error so long as the defendant is not prejudiced thereby and the State does not tailor the findings to meet the issues raised by the appellant in his opening brief. State v. Cannon, 130 Wash.2d 313, 329-30, 922 P.2d 1293 (1996). Pray does not argue that he was prejudiced by the belated filing, nor is there any evidence that the State tailored the findings after Pray‘s opening brief was filed. Therefore, there is no error. See McGary, 37 Wash.App. at 861, 683 P.2d 1125.
We affirm.