State Of Washington, V. Michael Raymond Aumack

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 58825-1
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

December 17, 2024

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58825-1-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION MICHAEL RAYMOND AUMACK,

Appellant.

MAXA, P.J. – Michael Aumack appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to hold the

Department of Corrections (DOC) in contempt for allegedly failing to adhere to the conditions of

community custody outlined in his 2012 judgment and sentence for attempted first degree child

molestation. Aumack argues that the trial court erred by concluding that it lacked the statutory

authority to enforce its sentencing orders and to address DOC’s administration of his community

custody conditions. The State contends that the trial court correctly determined that it did not

have personal jurisdiction over DOC and asserts that any challenge should be raised through a

personal restraint petition (PRP).

We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction

over DOC and therefore had no authority to find DOC in contempt. Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s denial of Aumack’s contempt motion. No. 58825-1-II

FACTS

In 2012, Aumack pled guilty to attempted first degree child molestation. The trial court

sentenced him to a minimum term of confinement of 43 months and a maximum term of life.

The court also sentenced Aumack to lifetime community custody. The judgment and sentence

imposed several community custody conditions. Community custody condition 7 stated,

You shall not enter into or frequent business establishments or areas that cater to minor children without being accompanied by a responsible adult. Such establishments may include but are not limited to video game parlors, parks, pools, skating rinks, school grounds, malls or any areas routinely used by minors as areas of play/recreation.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 40.

In 2016, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) ordered Aumack’s release

from prison to community custody. The order stated that Aumack was required to comply with

the conditions in his judgment and sentence.

In 2023, Aumack filed a motion with the trial court under the cause number for his 2012

criminal conviction, seeking an order for DOC “to show cause why it has failed to comply with

this court’s judgment and sentence regarding community custody conditions.” CP at 45.

Specifically, he argued that DOC failed to follow the trial court’s condition 7 by refusing to

recognize his wife as a “responsible adult,” thereby restricting his ability to attend certain public

events. Aumack sought an order holding DOC in contempt. DOC opposed the motion, arguing

that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to oversee its administration of the community

custody conditions because it was not a party to the action.

The trial court held a show cause hearing. The court concluded that it lacked personal

jurisdiction over DOC and therefore did not have authority to hold DOC in contempt. The court

denied the motion for contempt.

2 No. 58825-1-II

Aumack appeals the trial court’s denial of his contempt motion.

ANALYSIS

Aumack argues that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to

enforce its community custody conditions and to address DOC’s administration of those

conditions. We disagree.

RCW 9.94A.507 governs the sentencing of sex offenders. RCW 9.94A.507(5) requires

the trial court to impose a term of community custody “for any period of time the person is

released from total confinement before the expiration of the maximum sentence,” which for

Aumack was life. Under RCW 9.94A.704(1), “[e]very person who is sentenced to a period of

community custody shall report to and be placed under the supervision of [DOC].” But DOC

cannot contravene court-imposed conditions. RCW 9.94A.704(6).

Aumack argues that trial courts have inherent authority to enforce their sentencing orders.

However, the question here is whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over DOC. “A

court does not have personal jurisdiction over a party if the individual or entity is not designated

as a party and has not been made a party by service of process. If a court lacks personal

jurisdiction over a party, any order entered against that party is void.” Dept. of Soc. & Health

Servs. v. Zamora, 198 Wn. App. 44, 73, 392 P.3d 1124 (2017) (citations omitted).

Here, Aumack filed his contempt motion in the case in which he was convicted. But

there is no record that DOC was designated as a party, nor had the trial court obtained personal

jurisdiction over DOC by service of process. Therefore, the trial court did not have personal

jurisdiction over DOC and it had no authority to find DOC in contempt.

DOC acknowledges that a trial court may be able to find a nonparty agency such as DOC

in contempt under certain circumstances if the court imposes specific obligations on the nonparty

3 No. 58825-1-II

based on express statutory authority. But no court order imposes any obligation on DOC

regarding the application of community custody condition 7, and there is no express statutory

authority allowing the trial court to supervise DOC’s administration of the court’s community

custody conditions. In fact, after the judgment and sentence is entered, absent express statutory

authority the trial court “ ‘loses jurisdiction to the DOC.’ ” State v. Hubbard, 1 Wn.3d 439, 445,

527 P.3d 1152 (2023) (quoting State v. Harkness, 145 Wn. App. 678, 685, 186 P.3d 1182

(2008)).

As DOC acknowledges, Aumack is not without a remedy. In State v. Ortega, this court

addressed community custody conditions imposed by a community corrections officer. 21 Wn.

App. 2d 488, 496, 506 P.3d 1287 (2022). The court stated, “[i]f there is an unreasonable

exercise of discretion in a condition’s application, the offender may bring a challenge based on

those particular facts through a personal restraint petition.” Id. at 496-97. This comment applies

equally to the application of a court-imposed condition. A person on community custody is

under “restraint” as required in RAP 16.4(b). In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 1 Wn.3d 882, 892,

533 P.3d 875 (2023). And the improper application of a community custody condition would

constitute an unlawful restraint under RAP 16.4(c)(7).

We hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that it did not have personal

jurisdiction over DOC and therefore had no authority to find DOC in contempt.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s denial of Aumack’s contempt motion.

4 No. 58825-1-II

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

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, P.J.

We concur:

LEE, J.

GLASGOW, J.