Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92, 117 S.Ct.
644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) holds that where the existence of
a prior conviction is an element of an offense, the trial
court must accept the accused's offer to stipulate to the
prior conviction. This appeal requires us to determine
whether this rule extends to an accused's offer to
stipulate to a postconviction no-contact order. We hold that
it does. We, therefore, reverse Brendan Taylor's
conviction for felony violation of a no-contact order and
remand for retrial.
no-contact order prohibited Brendan Taylor from being within
1, 000 feet of Anna Kelly. But they decided to live together
Christmas Day of 2016, their landlord drove past their
residence and saw Kelly using a snow shovel "like a
hatchet" against the windshield of Taylor's car.
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 140. The landlord called 911.
the police arrived, Taylor was gone. Kelly claimed that
Taylor had assaulted her. At the time, Taylor was under
supervision by the Department of Corrections for a prior
State charged Taylor with several crimes, including the two
crimes that are at issue on appeal: felony violation of a
no-contact order and escape from community
prior to trial, Taylor chose to plead guilty to some of the
charges, including escape from community custody. At the plea
hearing, he presented a written statement that provided the
factual basis for his plea. The statement reads in part:
On or about December 27, 2017 [sic, I did willfully discontinue
making myself available to the Department of Corrections for
supervision, by making my whereabouts unknown or by failing
to maintain contact with the Department as directed by the
Community Corrections Office.
Papers (CP) at 19. Taylor signed the statement, attesting to
its accuracy. When asked by the trial court if the statement
was true, Taylor responded,
I was out of gas in Oregon. But it's-Yeah, it's
basically true. . . . I was making my way to get back up here
. . . .
. . . . . . .
I was on the phone with [my community corrections officer]
and then he had left a message that I wasn't going to be
able to make an appointment, but it's still-it's
still the same as-as missing out on-on that.
RP at 7-8.
morning of trial, Taylor asked that the no-contact order be
excluded in light of his stipulation that he knew of its
existence. The State responded that it planned on admitting
two no-contact orders. The following discussion occurred:
THE COURT: . . . [S]ometimes . . . we'll have a case
where there's a charge of felon in possession of a
. . . .
THE COURT: One of the things the state would have to prove is
the underlying felony conviction. Often-times the defense
will stipulate to that in an effort to avoid the prejudice of
having the specific named felony brought into the mix. And I
think that's ...