State of Washington v. Grant H. Denison
Opinion
FILED JULY 6, 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
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 39203-1-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) GRANT H. DENISON, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
STAAB, J. — Grant Denison appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to
restore his firearm rights. He argues that the trial court erred in determining that his
firearm rights were never limited by his fourth degree assault conviction and claims they
were limited because he committed the assault against a family or household member.
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Denison was originally charged with second degree assault against a family or
household member. The State subsequently amended the charge to fourth degree assault
and removed the allegation that the assault had been committed against a family or
household member.
On July 27, 2016, Denison pleaded guilty to the amended fourth degree assault
charge, and the trial court accepted the plea. As part of Denison’s guilty plea, he agreed No. 39203-1-III State v. Denison
that the trial court “may review the police reports and/or a statement of probable cause
supplied by the prosecution to establish a factual basis for the plea.” Clerk’s Papers at
23. Along with detailing the alleged assault, the probable cause affidavit stated that the
victim was Denison’s girlfriend and that the two had lived together for 14 years and had
two children.
Denison’s standard-form statement of defendant on plea of guilty included several
boxes that could be checked or marked if the crime to which he was pleading guilty was
considered domestic violence or against a family or household member. On the first page
a paragraph can be filled in with the offenses that are committed against a family or
household member. This paragraph was left blank, indicating that none of the charges
were against a family or household member. On page three of the form, a paragraph
advising that a conviction will result in the loss of firearm rights was crossed out.
Likewise, the judgment and sentence stated that Denison had pleaded guilty to fourth
degree assault and contained no findings that the crime was committed against a family
or household member. Nor is there any indication in the record that Denison was
advised by the court that he had lost his firearm rights as a result of the conviction.
Six years after his guilty plea, Denison filed a motion to restore his firearm rights.
He argued that because he had been convicted of fourth degree assault against an intimate
partner, his firearm rights had been limited, but maintained that he was now eligible for
restoration of those rights. Denison’s counsel admitted that although Denison had been
2 No. 39203-1-III State v. Denison
“delayed on a firearm purchase,” he had not actually been denied the purchase of a
firearm. In response, the State maintained that Denison had not been convicted of an
offense prohibiting him from possessing a firearm under Washington law.
The trial court denied the motion as not ripe, determining that there was no proof
of Denison’s inability to obtain firearms.
Denison appeals.
ANALYSIS
Denison contends that his conviction for fourth degree assault caused him to lose
his firearm rights because the police reports used to support his plea included an
allegation that the victim was a member of the same family or household. Denison’s
argument is legally incorrect. Because he otherwise fails to show that factually his
firearm rights have been lost, we affirm the trial court.
A conviction for fourth degree assault will generally not result in the loss of
firearm rights. However, when the crime is committed against a family or household
member, the person becomes ineligible to possess a firearm. RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i).1
The parties disagree on whether Dennison has been convicted of a predicate offense.
1 All references to the RCW refer to the version of the statute in force at the time Denison was convicted of fourth degree assault in July 2016. At the time of Dennison’s conviction, “family or household member” included adult persons who had a child together. See former RCW 9.41.010(5) (2014) referring to the definitions provided by former RCW 10.99.020 (2004).
3 No. 39203-1-III State v. Denison
Denison insists that since he was convicted of fourth degree assault and he stipulated that
the court could consider a probable cause statement that alleged the crime was committed
against his girlfriend with whom he had children, that he is now ineligible to possess
firearms under Washington State law.
It is true that assault domestic violence is not a separate offense. State v. Felix, 125
Wn. App. 575, 105 P.3d 427 (2005). And for purposes of finding a person ineligible to
possess a firearm, the relationship status does not need to be plead or proved. Id. Still, a
person found guilty of a crime that renders them ineligible to possess a firearm must be
notified of the loss of such right at the time of sentencing and this notice is then sent to the
Department of Licensing. RCW 9.41.047(1)(a), (b). In addition, courts are required to
identify criminal actions arising from acts of domestic violence. RCW 10.99.040(1)(d).
Here, the State denies that Denison was convicted of a predicate offense and
Denison fails to show otherwise. The State did not plead or prove a relationship status
for the fourth degree assault charge, Denison did not admit to the relationship status, and
the court did not find one. While Denison stipulated that the court could consider the
propable cause statement for purposes of finding a factual basis for the plea, he did not
stipulate that the crime was committed against a family or household member.
Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating that Denison was notified by the court
that he was ineligible to possess firearms as a result of the conviction. Finally, Denison
4 No. 39203-1-III State v. Denison
fails to show that his firearm rights were actually restricted. Denison’s attorney admitted
below that Denison had not been prevented from purchasing a firearm.
There is argument from the State that it is possible that Denison’s firearm rights
may be restricted under federal law, but Denison denies any claims under federal law.
Regardless, this case concerns only State law, and Denison’s firearm rights under federal
law are irrelevant to this court’s determination. See State v. Kincer, __Wn. App. __, 527
P.3d 837, 840-42 (2023) (determining that federal law did not preclude defendant from
having firearm rights restored under Washington law).
The trial court did not err in denying Denison’s motion to restore his right to
possess firearms because Denison failed to demonstrate that his rights had been revoked.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Washington v. Grant H. Denison (State of Washington v. Grant H. Denison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.