State v. Stratton

Citation130 Wn. App. 760,124 P.3d 660
Decision Date13 December 2005
Docket NumberNo. 32125-4-II.,32125-4-II.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
PartiesSTATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Michael Gilbert STRATTON, Appellant.

Michelle L. Shaffer, Cowlitz Co. Pros. Attorney Office, Kelso, WA, for Respondent.

John A. Hays, Attorney at Law, Longview, WA, for Appellant.

PUBLISHED OPINION

ARMSTRONG, J.

¶ 1 Michael Gilbert Stratton appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender under RCW 9A.44.130. Stratton argues he did not have to re-register under the statute because his previously registered address was still his fixed residence; he had moved out of the house at the address, but he still received his mail there, received phone service there, and spent nights there in his car. Interpreting the statutory ambiguity in Stratton's favor, we hold that the State failed to prove that Stratton lacked a "fixed residence" or that he changed his address. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss.

FACTS

¶ 2 In October 2000, Michael Gilbert Stratton was convicted of luring with sexual motivation. Based on that conviction, he was required to register as a sex offender under RCW 9A.44.130.

¶ 3 After his conviction, Stratton entered into a real estate contract to purchase the house and property at 121 Beacon Hill Drive in Longview. When he moved onto the property in mid-2002, he reported his new address to the Cowlitz County Sheriff's Office as the registration statute required.

¶ 4 In Spring 2003, Stratton defaulted on the purchase. Unable to cure the default, he voluntarily moved out of the house and returned the keys on September 12, 2003. He testified that when he returned the keys to the real estate agency, he asked if he could be allowed to leave some items on the property for a while, use the telephone box, and be there "for a little bit." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 64. Accordingly, he continued his telephone service and his postal service.

¶ 5 After returning the keys to the house, Stratton began living out of his vehicle, which he regularly parked in the driveway behind the 121 Beacon Hill Drive house at night. He testified that he remained at the property because he had to use the telephone box there to receive phone messages related to his construction supply business. He conducted most of his business by telephone, and he had an internet long distance service that worked only if he plugged into the telephone box at the Beacon Hill Drive location. Stratton testified that he plugged in his phone to the telephone box every day to get his phone messages. He drove his car on and off the property during the day. He did not notify the sheriff about his situation because he had not moved off the property and still considered it his residence.

¶ 6 In February 2004, Cowlitz County Sheriff's Deputies Chuck Dubke and Jerry Baker went to 121 Beacon Hill Drive to verify that Stratton still lived there. When the officers arrived, they noticed a "for sale" sign in front of the house, and they saw no furniture or belongings inside. They knocked twice, received no answer, and left. In March 2004, the State charged Stratton with failure to register as a sex offender, alleging in part:

The defendant ... did knowingly fail to send his change of address to the Cowlitz County Sheriff ... after ceasing to have a fixed residence ... and/or lacking a fixed residence did knowingly fail to report weekly to the Cowlitz County Sheriff; contrary to RCW 9A.44.130(1), (4)(a), (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b).

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1.

¶ 7 Several neighbors confirmed Stratton's testimony about his presence and activities at the residence. The trial court found that Stratton spent most nights in his car in the driveway, used the phone line outside the house to connect to the internet, and often left his car in the area.

¶ 8 Stratton waived his right to a jury trial, and the trial court convicted him, concluding that he was a "transient, living in his car outside his previous residence." CP at 7.

ANALYSIS

I. Due Process

¶ 9 Stratton argues that under the undisputed facts and the trial court's findings, the State failed to prove that he was required to register because he lacked a fixed address.

¶ 10 If a convicted sex offender changes his residence address within the same county, he must give the county sheriff written notice of the change within 72 hours. RCW 9A.44.130(5)(a). In addition, a convicted sex offender who lacks a "fixed residence" is required to provide written notice to the sheriff of the county where he last registered within 48 hours. RCW 9A.44.130(6)(a). In addition, he must report weekly, in person, to the sheriff of the county where he is registered. RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b).

¶ 11 We interpret statutes de novo. State v. Liden, 118 Wash.App. 734, 738, 77 P.3d 668 (2003). Our goal is to "ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the legislature in creating the statute." Am. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Steen, 151 Wash.2d 512, 518, 91 P.3d 864 (2004) (citing State v. Watson, 146 Wash.2d 947, 954, 51 P.3d 66 (2002)). We look for a statute's meaning from its wording, the context in which we find the statute, and the entire statutory scheme. State v. Jacobs, 154 Wash.2d 596, 600, 115 P.3d 281 (2005) (citing Wash. Pub. Ports Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 148 Wash.2d 637, 645, 62 P.3d 462 (2003)); see State v. Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wash.2d 1, 10-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). If a statute provides no definition for a term, we look to the standard dictionary definitions. Am. Cont'l, 151 Wash.2d at 518, 91 P.3d 864 (citing Watson, 146 Wash.2d at 954, 51 P.3d 66).

¶ 12 A statute is ambiguous if we can interpret it in more than one reasonable way. Jacobs, 154 Wash.2d at 600-01, 115 P.3d 281 (citing Wash. Pub. Ports, 148 Wash.2d at 645, 62 P.3d 462). And if a criminal statute is ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that we interpret it in favor of the defendant absent legislative intent to the contrary. Jacobs, 154 Wash.2d at 601, 115 P.3d 281 (citing In re Post Sentencing Review of Charles, 135 Wash.2d 239, 249, 955 P.2d 798 (1998)); State v. Roberts, 117 Wash.2d 576, 586, 817 P.2d 855 (1991).

¶ 13 Chapter 9A.44 RCW does not define the phrase "fixed residence." Accordingly, we look to a standard dictionary, which includes the following definitions for "residence":

the act ... of abiding or dwelling in a place for some time: an act of making one's home in a place ...; the place where one actually lives or has his home distinguished from his technical domicile; ... a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode, or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from a place of temporary sojourn or transient visit ...; a building used as a home.

WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, at 1931 (1969) (emphasis added). "Fixed" can mean "securely placed or fastened," "permanently and definitely located," or "not subject to change or fluctuation," among other definitions. WEBSTER'S THIRD, at 861.

¶ 14 "Residence" is ambiguous as applied here. It could simply indicate a place where one actually lives, not necessarily limited to a building, or it could be limited to a building used as a home. Accordingly, the rule of lenity requires that we interpret the statute in Stratton's favor absent legislative intent to the contrary. The purpose of the sex offender registration statute is to assist law enforcement agencies' efforts to protect their communities against sex offenders who re-offend. State v. Pray, 96 Wash.App. 25, 28, 980 P.2d 240 (1999) (citing LAWS OF 1990, ch. 3, § 401). Specifically, registration provides law enforcement agencies with an address where they can contact a sex offender. Pray, 96 Wash.App. at 28-29, 980 P.2d 240 (emphasis added). The sheriff could have contacted Stratton at the 121 Beacon Hill Drive address by mail, by phone, or in person in the evenings.

¶ 15 The legislature added the phrase "fixed residence" to the registration statute in 1999 in response to State v. Pickett, 95 Wash.App. 475...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • State v. Watson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 5 Abril 2007
    ...enforcement agencies' protection efforts." State v. Heiskell, 129 Wash.2d 113, 117, 916 P.2d 366 (1996); see also State v. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. 760, 765, 124 P.3d 660 (2005); State v. Pray, 96 Wash.App. 25, 28, 980 P.2d 240 (1999) (citing Laws of 1990, ch. 3, § 401). It does so by keepin......
  • City of Fed. Way v. Town & Country Real Estate Llc
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 2011
    ...by looking at another statute on the same subject.” Black's Law Dictionary, 807 (8th ed.2004). FN32. See, e.g., State v. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. 760, 764, 124 P.3d 660 (2005) (“We look for a statute's meaning from its wording, the context in which we find the statute, and the entire statuto......
  • State v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 14 Diciembre 2009
    ...we apply the rule of lenity in favor of the accused. State v. Lively, 130 Wash.2d 1, 14, 921 P.2d 1035 (1996); State v. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. 760, 764-65, 124 P.3d 660 (2005). ¶ 28 Gordon urges the court to consider whether the 2003 amendment resolves the central problem the court in Andr......
  • State v. Hirschfelder
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 13 Enero 2009
    ...if we cannot resolve an ambiguity through these steps, we apply the rule of lenity in favor of the accused. State v. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. 760, 764-65, 124 P.3d 660 (2005). B. Plain Language of RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) ¶ 14 RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) uses the terms "minor" and "student" and the phras......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT