issue is a postconviction domestic violence no-contact order
issued by a district court under RCW 10.99.050(1) to record a
condition of the sentence. We hold the court erred by
refusing to lift the order when the defendant fulfilled all
the conditions of her sentence.
Wendy Granath was charged with sending a series of harassing
e-mails to her estranged husband. She was convicted in King
County District Court on one count of cyberstalking and one
count of violation of a no-contact order. Both offenses were
designated as crimes of domestic violence.
November 8, 2012, the court imposed a 24-month suspended
sentence. The court ordered 24 months of supervised probation
and imposed fines and fees totaling $1, 808.
the heading of "Conditions" on the Judgment and
sentence form, the court checked the box marked "Do not
go on the property of and have no contact with"
the victim. The form informed Granath that the conditions of
sentence would "remain In effect through the period of
the deferred or suspended sentence until and unless changed
by Court order" and that a violation could lead to
revocation of the suspended sentence.
November 8, 2012, the court issued a no-contact order. The
order form was captioned as a postconviction domestic
violence no-contact order authorized by RCW 10.99.050. The
order directed Granath not to threaten, stalk, harass, or
contact her estranged husband or keep him under surveillance,
and not to knowingly come within 500 feet of him, his
residence, his school, or his workplace. The order warned,
"Violation of this order is a criminal offense under
chapter 26.50 RCW and will subject a violator to
order form Includes a blank space for the expiration date:
4. This no-contact order expires on:___.Five years from today
if no date is entered.
Granath's case, the district court did not enter a date
in the blank, so by default, the order was set to expire on
November 8, 2017.
parties agree that the district court "closed the
case" in December 2014 after Granath paid the fines. At
this point, the no-contact condition of her sentence no
longer remained in effect. Granath moved to have the
no-contact order vacated on the ground that it expired when
she completed her sentence. The district court denied the
motion. The court characterized a no-contact order issued
under RCW 10.99.050 as a "stand-alone" order and
found that such an order can "survive on its own"
for a full five years even if the underlying sentence is
appealed to King County Superior Court. The superior court
affirmed. This court granted Granath's motion for
statute under consideration requires a court to
"record" a written no-contact order "when a
defendant is found guilty of a crime and a condition of the
sentence restricts the defendant's ability to have
contact with the victim":
(1) When a defendant is found guilty of a crime and a
condition of the sentence restricts the defendant's
ability to have contact with the victim, such condition shall
be recorded and a written certified copy of that order shall
be provided to the victim.
(2)(a) Willful violation of a court order issued under this
section is punishable under RCW 26.50.110.
(b) The written order shall contain the court's
directives and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order
is a criminal offense under chapter 26.50 RCW and will
subject a violator to arrest; any assault, drive-by shooting,
or reckless ...