State v. Miniken
Decision Date | 30 May 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 44654-1-I.,44654-1-I. |
Citation | 999 P.2d 1289,100 Wash.App. 925 |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. John T. MINIKEN, Appellant. |
Gregory Charles Link, Seattle, for Appellant.
Seth Aaron Fine, Snohomish Co. Prosecutor's Office, Everett, for Respondent.
John Miniken was convicted of two counts of first degree statutory rape. After he completed his prison sentence and satisfied his community placement and financial obligations, the Department of Corrections requested that a certificate of discharge be issued. The State opposed issuing the discharge, arguing that doing so would terminate jurisdiction to enforce the no contact order. The sentencing court denied the certificate of discharge. Miniken appeals, arguing that only affirmative acts comprise the "requirements of the sentence" and that because he fulfilled his affirmative obligations, he is entitled to a certificate of discharge. Because it is clear from the statute that a no-contact order is a sentence requirement, we affirm the denial of the certificate of discharge.
"When an offender has completed the requirements of the sentence, the secretary of the department or the secretary's designee shall notify the sentencing court, which shall discharge the offender and provide the offender with a certificate of discharge." RCW 9.94A.220(1). A certificate of discharge has the effect of restoring all civil rights lost by operation of law as the result of conviction as well as terminating the sentencing court's jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of the sentence. RCW 9.94A.220(3); State v. Johnson, 54 Wash.App. 489, 491, 774 P.2d 526 (1989).
At issue is the definition of the term "requirements of sentence." Both parties maintain that the definition of "requirement" supports their respective positions. Miniken interprets "requirement" to encompass only acts that the offender must affirmatively perform. The State, on the other hand, interprets the term to encompass all demands, including the no-contact order, with which the offender must comply.
Statutory construction or interpretation is reviewed de novo. Clauson v. Department of Labor & Indus., 130 Wash.2d 580, 583, 925 P.2d 624 (1996); State v. Merritt, 91 Wash.App. 969, 973, 961 P.2d 958 (1998). If the statute is unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation and its meaning is derived from its language alone. State v. Chester, 133 Wash.2d 15, 21, 940 P.2d 1374 (1997). "Statutes are to be construed as a whole, considering all provisions in relation to each other and giving effect to each provision." Merritt, 91 Wash.App. at 973,961 P.2d 958. The interpretation that is adopted should be the one that best advances the legislative purpose. Rozner v. City of Bellevue, 116 Wash.2d 342, 347, 804 P.2d 24 (1991).
Here the statute, construed as a whole, is unambiguous. Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981(SRA), a court has the authority to prohibit an offender from having contact with individuals for a period longer than the sentence imposed but not beyond the maximum allowable sentence.
As a part of any sentence, the court may impose and enforce an order that relates directly to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted, prohibiting the offender from having any contact with other specified individuals or a specific class of individuals for a period not to exceed the maximum allowable sentence for the crime, regardless of the expiration of the offender's term of community supervision or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Armendariz
...the imposition of no-contact orders for a term equal to the statutory maximum for the defendant's crime.4 See also State v. Miniken, 100 Wash.App. 925, 928, 999 P.2d 1289 (discussing trial court authority to impose no-contact orders under former RCW 9.94A.120(20)), review denied, 142 Wash.2......
-
State v. Porter
...¶ 7 A certificate of discharge restores an offender's civil rights lost as a result of conviction. State v. Miniken, 100 Wash.App. 925, 927, 999 P.2d 1289 (2000). RCW 9.94A.637 sets forth the process by which an offender is discharged. When the trial court receives notice that an offender h......
-
State v. Brown
...condition of Mr. Brown's community placement. Finally, the cases relied upon by the State are not applicable here. Both State v. Miniken, 100 Wash.App. 925, 999 P.2d 1289, review denied, 142 Wash.2d 1009, 16 P.3d 1267 (2000), and State v. Beer, 93 Wash.App. 539, 969 P.2d 506 (1999), concern......
-
In re Marriage of Olson, No. 43879-4-I
... ... Wendy Olson, Bothell, for Respondents ... Lisa Powell Nelson, King County Pros. Atty. Ofc., Seattle, for State of Washington ... PER CURIAM ... A trial court must consider a parent's request for child support modification ... ...