### FILED AUGUST 

### 16, 2016 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division Ill



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v. STEPHEN GERALD DOUGLAS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) No. 33793-6-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SIDDOWAY, 

### J.

- Stephen Gerald Douglas was convicted in a 2015 Franklin Countyjurytrial ofthe felony violation ofa 2013 no contact order. On appeal, he contends the evidence does not supporthis conviction becausethe only direct evidence that supported the knowledge element ofthe crime was a certified copy ofthe no contact orderthatwaspurportedly signed by him. In his statement ofadditional grounds for review, he challenges his offender score and the validity ofthe 2013 no contact order.No. 33793-6-111 

### State v. Douglas
We hold thatMr. Douglas's signature on the 2013 no contact order and other circumstantial evidence are sufficientto support a reasonablejuror's decision beyond a reasonable doubt thathe knew the terms ofthe order. We also holdthatthe offender
score is correct and thatMr. Douglas's challenge ofthe 2013 order is untimely. Accordingly, hisjudgment and sentence is affirmed. FACTS Mr. Douglas has a history ofdomestic violence against his wife, Sheree McCullough. In 2013, he was convicted on a guilty plea offelony violation ofa no contact orderrelated to Ms. McCullough. The 2013judgment and sentence orders him to have no contactwith Ms. McCullough for five years and states that a separate domestic violence protection order is being filed with thejudgment and sentence. Mr. Douglas signedthejudgmentand sentence as well as the no contact order filed on the same date: July 23, 2013. One ofthe terms ofthe no contact orderrestrained him from "[e]ntering
or knowingly coming within or knowingly remaining within 500 feet (distance) ofthe protected person'(s) [X] residence [X] school [X] place ofemployment." Ex. 3 at 1. The order expires on July 23, 2018. In early April 2015, a Franklin County deputy stopped Ms. McCullough for driving with a suspended license. The deputy noted that Ms. McCullough appeared fearful, and she claimedthat she was a "damsel in distress" with a domestic violence "situation." Report ofProceedings at 65-66. The deputy followed Ms. McCullough to 2No. 33793-6-111 

### State v. Douglas
herhome and found Mr. Douglas hiding in his daughter's bedroom, onthe floor between herbed and the wall. As deputies arrested him for violation ofthe no contact order, Mr. Douglas showed no confusion about the reason for his arrest. Later, he asked a deputy how he could have violatedthe no contact order ifhe was not with Ms. McCullough at the time she was stopped in her car. He admitted thathe had been at her residence all day. AtMr. Douglas's trial on the charge offelony violation ofa no contact order, the State presented certified copies ofthe 2013judgment and sentence and the attached no contact order. A deputy who was a former corrections officertestified that defendants typically were given copies oftheirjudgment and sentences and no contact orders after sentencing. Thejury found him guilty ofthe charge. Using an offender score of8, the court imposed a standard range sentence of60 months. SUFFICIENCY OF THE SIGNED NO CONTACT ORDERTO SHOW KNOWLEDGE OF ITS TERMS Mr. Douglas challenges the sufficiency ofthe evidence to support his conviction. He contends the signed 2013 no contact order is insufficient to showthat he knew the terms ofthe order. The State mustprove beyond a reasonable doubt every element ofa criminal offense. 

### State v. Colquitt, 133 Wn. App. 789, 796, 137 P.3d 892 (2006). Evidence is sufficientto support a guilty verdict if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
3No. 33793-6-111 State v. Douglas State, it allows a rational trier offact to find the essential elements ofthe crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 874, 83 P.3d 970 (2004). In challenging the sufficiency ofthe evidence, a defendant necessarily admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that arise from that evidence. Id. Circumstantial evidence is considered as reliable as direct evidence. Id. The four elements ofa felony violation ofa no contact orderrelevanthere are (1) willful contact with another, (2) a valid no contact orderthatprohibits such contact, (3) the defendant's knowledge ofthe no contact order, and (4) the defendant's prior convictions ofat least two separate violations ofa valid no contact order. State v. Clowes, 104 Wn. App. 935,944, 18 P.3d 596 (2001); RCW 26.50.110(5). Mr. Douglas challenges solely the sufficiency ofthe evidence to supportthe third element: knowledge ofthe no contact order. Attrial, the State admitted into evidence certified copies ofthe 2013 conviction of
a felony violation ofa no contact order and the no contact order entered on the same date. The 2013judgmentand sentence states that Mr. Douglas was present at sentencing, notes that a separate domestic violence protection order is filed with thejudgmentand sentence, and contains Mr. Douglas's signature, with an attestation by the clerk ofcourt that Mr. Douglas had affixed his fingerprints and signature on the document. Mr. Douglas signed the no contact orderbelow statements that the order expires onJuly 23,

4

### No. 33793-6-III State v. Douglas 2018, and that the order was "Done in Open Court in the presence ofthe defendant this date: 9/22/13." Ex. 3 at 2. The certified copy ofthe valid no contact order containing Mr. Douglas's signature is sufficient evidence in itselfto establish his knowledge ofthe order. State v. France, 129 Wn. App. 907, 911, 120 P.3d 654 (2005). Additionally, the facts that the deputies found him hiding in Ms. McCullough's home and that he expressed no surprise when he was told why he was arrested raise a reasonable inference that he knew he was violating the terms ofthe order. Viewed, as it mustbe, in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence is sufficient for a reasonablejurorto find beyond a reasonable doubt that 

### Mr. Douglas knew the terms ofthe valid no contact order. OFFENDER SCORE In his statement ofadditional grounds for review, 

### Mr. Douglas contends the trial court incorrectly computed his offender score. He did not challenge the computation of his prior offenses at trial. The issue is not waived, however, because a sentence based on
an improperly calculated score lacks statutory authority. State v. Wilson, 170 Wn.2d 682, 688,244 P.3d 950 (2010). Ourreview is de novo. State v. Hernandez, 185 Wn. App. 680, 684, 342 P.3d 820 (2015), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1002 (2016). The trial court used an offender score of8to determine Mr. Douglas's standard sentence range. His criminal history includes five prior felonies: (1) felony domestic violence (1/19/00), (2) second degree assault (4/04/00), (3) community custody violation 5

### No. 33793-6-111 

### State 

### v. Douglas ( 4/29/02), (4) theft ofrental property (4/17/03), and (5) felony violation ofa no contact order with domestic violence (7/23/13). Because violation ofa no contact order with domestic violence is a "nonviolent felony," four ofMr. Douglas's five prior felony convictions count as one point each and the 2013 felony violation ofa no contact order with domestic violence counts as two points. RCW 9.94A.030(34), (55); RCW 9.94A.525(7), (2l)(a). Mr. Douglas has one countable prior gross misdemeanor for domestic violence assault (committed 4/24/13). RCW 9.94A.525(2l)(c). With five points for four prior felonies and one gross misdemeanor, two points for the 2013 felony violation ofa no contact order, and one point for committing the current offense while under community custody (RCW 9.94A.525(19)), Mr. Douglas's offender
score is 8. The trial courtthus did not err in computing the offender score. VALIDITY OF THE 2013 NO CONTACT ORDER Mr. Douglas also challenges the validity ofthe 2013 no contact order. He contends there are no transcripts or recordings that prove the order was ever entered. His appeal ofthis order is untimely. RAP 5.2(a). Furthermore, the certified copy ofthe 2013
no contact orderthat is contained in this record is valid on its face. RCW 10.73.090(1). Affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will notbeprinted in the

6 

# I •No. 33793-6-III 

### State 

### v. Douglas Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public recordpursuantto RCW 2.06.040. 

# ~w~1J

- Siddoway, 

### J. WE CONCUR: 

# ,~,s. Fearing, Pennell, J.

7