City of Seattle v. May

• Decision Date: 23 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 83677–9.,83677–9.
• Citation: 256 P.3d 1161,171 Wash.2d 847
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent,v.Robert J. MAY, Petitioner.

171 Wash.2d 847

256 P.3d 1161

CITY OF SEATTLE, Respondent,

v.Robert J. MAY, Petitioner.

No. 83677–9.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued Oct. 21, 2011.Decided June 23, 2011.

Christine Anne Jackson, The Public Defender, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.Richard Edward Greene, Seattle City Attorney's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.OWENS, J.

[171 Wash.2d 850] ¶ 1 In 2005, Robert May violated a domestic violence protection order that prohibited him from contacting his ex-wife. As a result, May was convicted, under a city of Seattle ordinance, of violating the protection order. May contends that the order he is charged with violating is invalid and that he lacked notice that violating the no-contact provision of the order was a criminal offense. The superior court reversed the municipal court convictions, and the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, reinstating the convictions. We affirm the Court of Appeals on different grounds, concluding that May's first challenge is precluded by the collateral bar rule and that his second challenge fails in light of State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 238 P.3d 487 (2010).

FACTS

¶ 2 On December 30, 1996, the King County Superior Court issued an amended order for protection to Desiree Douglass, May's ex-wife.¹ In that order, the court found that May had “committed domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 16. As a result, the order prohibited May from, among other things, “having any contact whatsoever, in person or through others, directly or indirectly with” Douglass. Id. The final paragraph of the order included the following statement:

THIS ORDER FOR PROTECTION IS PERMANENT [/]

If the duration of this order exceeds one year, the court finds that an order of less than one year will be insufficient to prevent further acts of domestic violence.

Id. at 17. The check mark is handwritten. The order also plainly advised May that

[v]iolation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its terms is [a] criminal offense under chapter 26.50 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violator to arrest.

....

... You have the sole responsibility to avoid or refrain from violation [of] the order's provisions. Only the court can change the order upon written application.

Id. May signed the order, indicating receipt of a copy.

¶ 3 In spite of the provisions of the domestic violence protection order clearly prohibiting “any contact whatsoever,” id. at 16, May nonetheless contacted Douglass several times in 2005 regarding nonemergency matters. ² As a result, May was charged in the Seattle Municipal Court with four counts of violating the domestic violence protection order. This prosecution was pursuant to former Seattle Municipal Code 12A.06.180(A) (2000). May was ultimately convicted of two counts of violating a domestic violence protection order, and the court imposed a deferred two-year sentence. The superior court subsequently reversed the municipal court, finding that “[t]he protection order was facially invalid because the language in the last paragraph of the order ... is not the finding required by RCW 26.50.060(2).” CP at 98. The Court of Appeals, in turn, reversed the superior court and reinstated May's conviction. City of Seattle v. May, 151 Wash.App. 694, 699, 213 P.3d 945 (2009). May petitioned this court for review, which we granted. City of Seattle v. May, 168 Wash.2d 1006, 226 P.3d 781 (2010).

ISSUES

¶ 4 1. Does the collateral bar rule prohibit May from challenging the validity of the domestic violence protection order in a prosecution for violation of that order?

[171 Wash.2d 852] ¶ 5 2. Does the prosecution of May violate due process because the order failed to give May fair warning of what conduct is prohibited?

ANALYSIS

A. The Collateral Bar Rule Precludes May's Challenge to the Domestic Violence Protection Order ³

¶ 6 The collateral bar rule prohibits a party from challenging the validity of a court order in a proceeding for violation of that order. State v. Noah, 103 Wash.App. 29, 46, 9 P.3d 858 (2000); State v. Wright, 273 Conn. 418, 426–28, 870 A.2d 1039 (2005). An exception exists for orders that are void.⁴ An order is void only if there is “an absence of jurisdiction to issue the type of order, to address the subject matter, or to bind the defendant.” Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 v. Mead Educ. Ass'n, 85 Wash.2d 278, 284, 534 P.2d 561 (1975). However, “[t]alismanic invocation of the phrase ‘lack of jurisdiction’ ” is insufficient to collaterally attack the court order. Id. at 282, 534 P.2d 561. In Mead School District, the court acknowledged that “[t]echnically, the [issuing] court lacked jurisdiction.” Id. at 281, 534 P.2d 561. The court went on, however, to find that the collateral bar rule precluded a challenge to that order. Id. at 284, 534 P.2d 561. For an order to be void, the court must lack the power to issue the type of order. Id. Provided that such power exists, any error in issuing an order may not be collaterally attacked. In sum, May can challenge the validity of the underlying domestic violence protection order only insofar as he can show that the order is absolutely void; the collateral bar rule precludes him from arguing that the order is merely erroneous.

¶ 7 May's order is not void. The superior court possessed jurisdiction “to issue the type of order,” id., that is, to issue a permanent domestic violence protection order. RCW 26.50.020(5) creates such jurisdiction. Any defects within the order simply go to whether the order was “merely erroneous, however flagrant” and cannot be collaterally attacked. State ex rel. Ewing v. Morris, 120 Wash. 146, 158, 207 P. 18 (1922); see Noah, 103 Wash.App. at 47, 9 P.3d 858 (“A court does not lose jurisdiction by interpreting the law erroneously.”). May contends that his order is invalid because the issuing court allegedly failed to find that May was likely to resume acts of domestic violence. This assertion of factual inadequacy does not go to the court's jurisdiction to issue a permanent domestic violence protection order, and, accordingly, the collateral bar rule precludes May's challenge.

¶ 8 State v. Miller, 156 Wash.2d 23, 123 P.3d 827 (2005), is entirely consistent with the collateral bar rule. In Miller, the defendant in a prosecution for violation of a domestic violence no-contact order, Clay Jason Miller, contended that the validity of the underlying no-contact order was an element of the crime that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. Id. at 25, 123 P.3d 827. We held that the validity of the order, as opposed to its existence, was neither a statutory nor an implied element of the crime. Id. at 31, 123 P.3d 827. Instead, we held that “[t]he court, as part of its gate-keeping function, should determine as a threshold matter whether the order alleged to be violated is applicable and will support the crime charged.” Id. We then expressly noted that “[w]e do not suggest that orders may be collaterally attacked after the alleged violations of the orders. Such challenges should go to the issuing court, not some other judge.” Id. at 31 n. 4, 123 P.3d 827.

¶ 9 Our discussion of the applicability of orders in Miller was an effort to harmonize that case with the results in City of Seattle v. Edwards, 87 Wash.App. 305, 941 P.2d 697 (1997), and State v. Marking, 100 Wash.App. 506, 997 P.2d 461 (2000), both of which were overruled in part by Miller. Miller, 156 Wash.2d at 30–31, 123 P.3d 827. In Edwards, the language in a no-contact order regarding its date of expiration was ambiguous, and the Court of Appeals construed it to mean that the order expired one year after its issuance unless the trial court extended the order. 87 Wash.App. at 309, 941 P.2d 697. Because Edwards's charged violation occurred more than one year after issuance of the no-contact order and no further order extending the order's duration had been issued, id. at 307, 309, 941 P.2d 697, Miller holds that the trial court should have excluded the order as inapplicable to the charged violation. Similarly, in Marking, the Court of Appeals confronted a situation in which a no-contact order lacked statutorily required notice that the no-contact provisions applied even if the contact occurred at the request of the protected party. 100 Wash.App. at 508, 997 P.2d 461 (citing former RCW 10.99.040(4)(d) (1997), recodified as RCW 10.99.040(4)(b)). The defendant was charged with violation of the no-contact order following an agreed meeting between the defendant and the protected party that led to an altercation. Id. at 507, 997 P.2d 461. At least arguably, the order failed to give the defendant notice that contact with consent of the protected party violated the order. This was an issue that should have been considered by the trial court prior to admitting the order; if the order failed to give the defendant notice that the charged conduct was prohibited, the order should have been excluded as inapplicable.

¶ 10 Today, we clarify that, in a proceeding for violation of a court order, the trial court's gate-keeping role includes excluding orders that are void, orders that are inapplicable to the crime charged (i.e., the order either does not apply to the defendant or does not apply to the charged conduct), and orders that cannot be constitutionally applied to the charged conduct (e.g., orders that fail to give the restrained party fair warning of the relevant prohibited conduct). Though some language in Miller may be capable of being read more broadly when viewed in isolation, Miller specifically stated that no-contact orders issued pursuant to chapter 10.99 RCW may not be “collaterally attacked after the alleged violations of the orders.” 156 Wash.2d at 31 n. 4, 123 P.3d 827. We see no reason this should apply differently to orders issued pursuant to chapter 26.50 RCW. The collateral bar rule precludes challenges to the validity—but not the applicability—of a...