Court Opinion

ID: 9905115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 19:13:35.029565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:49.983655
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                      NOVEMBER 28, 2023
                                                   In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                  WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                            DIVISION THREE

MARIA G. OSORIO MENDOZA,                     )          No. 38968-5-III
                                             )
                     Respondent,             )
                                             )
              v.                             )          UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                             )
NICHOLAS DENCHEL,                            )
                                             )
                     Appellant.              )

       LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Nicholas Denchel appeals the superior court’s “Order

on Motion for Revision.” We affirm.

                                         FACTS

       Nicholas Denchel and Maria Osorio Mendoza were intimate partners. Ms. Osorio

Mendoza filed for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against Mr. Denchel on

March 2, 2022. Ms. Osorio Mendoza indicated in the petition that she was a victim of

domestic violence committed by Mr. Denchel. She requested a temporary and permanent

DVPO restraining him from contact with herself and her two children.

       In support of the temporary DVPO, Ms. Osorio Mendoza alleged that Mr. Denchel

threatened to find her and her children and that he would “shoot himself” if she did not go
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

with him. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 4. Her petition further alleged that she had to change

her telephone number because he continuously called her if she failed to answer the

phone or respond to his e-mails. She alleged he would show up at her workplace when

she failed to answer or respond to him and would demand that she talk to him. She

described an instance where he appeared at her work during her lunch hour and left

unwanted gifts on her car, then attempted to grab her by the arm as she refused to talk to

him and attempted to return to work.

       Ms. Osorio Mendoza attached to her petition copies of e-mails from Mr. Denchel

where he stated: “F[ ] you. . . . You f[ ] me over. You call[ ] the cops I will shoot at their

cars since they shoot me.” CP at 8. “I will.die. all because I loved you.” CP at 9. “I

loved you and me killing myself will.make you pay for f[ ] over me . . . . You let the

devil win. You didnt fight or let the Lord be your guide snd I did. I want home with my

father.” CP at 10. “You serving God or the devil?” CP at 14. “Also I’m never going

away.” CP at 15. “That’s how the devil would want u to say good bye. Every time u

come closer to me again, the devil sends Alvin in to pull u away from God and u can’t

deny I’ve been asking us for our future to revolve around our relationship with God.”

CP at 15. “I’m bringing you home to Christ and to our home again.” CP at 16.

                                              2
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

       On March 2, the court issued a temporary DVPO pending a hearing. On

March 14, the court reissued the temporary DVPO. The next day, Mr. Denchel’s attorney

filed a notice of appearance.

       The hearing on the petition occurred on March 28, before Commissioner Diana

Ruff. When the hearing started, Mr. Denchel, through counsel, moved for a two-week

continuance to prepare and send written discovery to Ms. Osorio Mendoza. When asked

by the court, Ms. Osorio Mendoza said she opposed the continuance, adding that she had

missed two days of work already, and all she wanted was to be able to go to work without

being worried about her safety.

       The commissioner denied Mr. Denchel’s request for a continuance. She noted that

Mr. Denchel had been served one month earlier, that his attorney had appeared in the case

two weeks earlier, and yet had filed nothing since that time. Also, she determined that

Ms. Osorio Mendoza would be prejudiced by a continuance because she had already

missed work and she should not be required to miss additional work.

       The commissioner asked Ms. Osorio Mendoza if she had anything to say in

addition to her petition, and Ms. Osorio Mendoza responded that she did not. The

commissioner then gave Mr. Denchel an opportunity to speak. Through counsel, Mr.

                                            3
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

Denchel argued that the petition did not set forth facts supporting the statutory definition

of domestic violence.

       The commissioner disagreed and explained that the petition included messages

from Mr. Denchel that showed “a pattern of controlling and abusive messages threatening

suicide” and that some messages “threatened homicide.” Rep. of Proc. at 9. The

commissioner noted that there was no official response from Mr. Denchel in the record.

The commissioner entered a permanent DVPO and an order requiring Mr. Denchel to

surrender his firearms and dangerous weapons, and prohibiting him from possessing such

weapons.

       On April 6, Mr. Denchel filed a motion for revision of “the Commissioner’s order

entered on March 28, 2022 granting Petitioner’s request for a [DVPO].” CP at 33. He

did not seek revision of the other order of that same date or of the commissioner’s oral

ruling denying a continuance.

       On May 16, the court entered its order, which stated:

              Motion for Revision is hereby: DENIED without oral arguments.
              Commissioner Ruff correctly found that [Mr. Denchel’s] texts of
       threats to kill and offensive language constated [sic] acts of domestic
       violence as defined by RCW 26.50.010(3). Furthermore, Commissioner
       Ruff’s decision to not allow a continuance [was] within her discretion.
       With [Mr. Denchel’s] text “I’m bringing you home to Christ and to our
       home again” and multiple “F” words, a continuance would not have negated
       [Mr. Denchel’s] own words.

                                              4
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

CP at 36.

       Mr. Denchel timely appealed.

                                       ANALYSIS

       FIRST ARGUMENT: APPLICATION OF IMPROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW

       Mr. Denchel contends the superior court erred by applying the wrong standard of

review to his motion for revision. We disagree.

       All commissioner decisions are subject to revision by the superior court. WASH.

CONST., art. IV, § 23. “Such revision shall be upon the records of the case, and

the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the court commissioner . . . .”

RCW 2.24.050. The superior court reviews commissioner’s decisions de novo. State v.

Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 113, 86 P.3d 132 (2004). This right ensures litigants that

disputed decisions are made by elected judges.

       If the superior court is content with the commissioner’s decision, the court may

adopt the commissioner’s findings, either expressly or by clear implication from the

record. In re Dependency of B.S.S., 56 Wn. App. 169, 170, 782 P.2d 1100 (1989).

       We disagree that the superior court failed to review the commissioner’s decision

de novo. Appellate courts review trial court findings for substantial evidence. See, e.g.,

In re Determination of Rights to Use of Surface Waters of Yakima River Drainage Basin,

                                             5
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

198 Wn.2d 687, 722, 498 P.3d 911 (2021). With respect to the DVPO, there is nothing in

the superior court’s order that applies a substantial evidence standard. Rather, the

superior court, per its prerogative, expressed its agreement with the commissioner’s

decision.

       With respect to the commissioner’s denial of the continuance request, the superior

court’s comments were mere surplusage. Mr. Denchel’s motion for revision did not

encompass the commissioner’s oral denial of his continuance request.

       SECOND ARGUMENT: DUE PROCESS VIOLATION BY PREDETERMINING CASE

       Mr. Denchel next argues he was deprived of a fair hearing because the superior

court judge predetermined his case. He cites the judge’s comment, “a continuance would

not have negated the Respondent’s own words.” CP at 36. We disagree that the superior

court judge predetermined Mr. Denchel’s case.

       Mr. Denchel’s argument implies a belief that he was entitled to present additional

evidence to the superior court. If that is his belief, he is mistaken. See Ramer, 151

Wn.2d at 113 (superior court reviews commissioner’s decision based upon evidence and

issues presented to commissioner).

                                             6
No. 38968-5-III
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

       The superior court judge’s comment was made after the judge considered all of the

evidence, in the context of issuing its final order. One can hardly point to a comment

made in a final order as evidence that the judge improperly predetermined the case.

       FINAL ARGUMENT: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

       Mr. Denchel argues substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s

conclusion that he committed domestic violence. He raises two arguments in this respect.

       Mr. Denchel first argues he never threatened to kill Ms. Osorio Mendoza. We

disagree. The evidence in Ms. Osorio Mendoza’s petition paints a picture of a man who

refused to stop calling or texting her, who showed up at her work uninvited, threatened to

kill himself to pay her back for f[ ] him over, expressed a desire to go home and be with

his father, threatened to kill police if she called them, and claimed that the devil

controlled her. In this context, the text, “‘I’m bringing you home to Christ and to our

home again,’” might reasonably convey the threat to kill himself and her. CP at 36.

       Mr. Denchel next argues that his profane-laced messages and his text, “‘I’m

bringing you home to Christ and to our home again,’” constituted constitutionally

protected speech. CP at 36. He fails to provide any analysis or citation of authority in his

conclusory argument. We decline to address it.

                                              7
No. 38968-5-111
Osorio Mendoza v. Denchel

       An appellate court may decline to consider a constitutional issue with respect to

which it has not been provided with reasoned argument; naked castings into the

constitutional sea are insufficient to command judicial consideration and discussion.

Ass 'n of Wash. Bus. v. Dep 't ofRevenue, 155 Wn.2d 430, 450, 120 P.3d 46 (2005).

       Affirmed.

       A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

                                          Lawrence-Berrey, J.            -         )

WE CONCUR:

    ~~-.:r;
Fearing, C.J:                             Pennell, J.

                                             8