State v. Acheson

877 P.2d 217, 75 Wash. App. 151
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJuly 25, 1994
Docket15790-0-II
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 877 P.2d 217 (State v. Acheson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Acheson, 877 P.2d 217, 75 Wash. App. 151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Houghton, J.

Donald Acheson, a juvenile who pleaded guilty to first degree child molestation, appeals a trial court order notifying him he is required to comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act (Act). We affirm.

Facts

On December 3, 1991, Acheson, age 14, pleaded guilty to one count of child molestation in the first degree. In his guilty plea statement, he acknowledged that he had sexual contact with a 3-year-old girl in March 1991. At the disposition hearing, over the objection of defense counsel, the. court entered a sexual offender disposition order notifying him that he is required to comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act. He now appeals that order.

Analysis

A

Applicability of RCW 9A.44.130

Acheson contends that the Act was not intended to apply to juveniles under the jurisdiction of juvenile court. Our purpose in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. In re Chorney, 64 Wn. App. 469, 476, 825 P.2d 330 (1992). This intent is determined primarily from the language of the statute itself. Chorney; Washington Pub. Util. Dists’. Utils. Sys. v. PUD 1, 112 Wn.2d 1, 6, 771 P.2d 701 (1989). Where the language of *153 the statute is free of ambiguity, the statute will be held to mean exactly what it says, and rules of construction will not be applied. Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd., 56 Wn. App. 125, 130, 783 P.2d 82, review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1001 (1989).

Washington’s sex offender registration statute, RCW 9A.44.130, provides in pertinent part:

(1) Any adult or juvenile residing in this state who has been found to have committed or has been convicted of any sex offense shall register with the county sheriff for the county of the person’s residence.
(2) The person shall provide the county sheriff with the following information when registering: (a) Name; (b) address; (c) date and place of birth; (d) place of employment; (e) crime for which convicted; (f) date and place of conviction; (g) aliases used; and (h) social security number.

Acheson’s argument focuses on the meaning of "sex offense”, which for purposes of the sex offender registration statute means "any offense defined as a sex offense by RCW 9.94A.030.” RCW 9A.44.130(6). RCW 9.94A.030(29)(a)-(c) defines "sex offense” as:

(a) A felony that is a violation of chapter 9A.44 RCW or RCW 9A.64.020 or 9.68A.090 or that is, under chapter 9A.28 RCW, a criminal attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy to commit such crimes;
(b) A felony with a finding of sexual motivation under RCW 9.94A.127; or
(c) Any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state would be a felony classified as a sex offense under (a) of this subsection.

Acheson also focuses on the terms "convicted” and "conviction”. He argues that the Legislature did not intend to require that juveniles register because juveniles cannot be "convicted” of anything and juveniles cannot commit a "felony”, only an "offense”.

Acheson also relies on the court’s ruling in In re Frederick, 93 Wn.2d 28, 604 P.2d 953 (1980) as support for his contention that he has no duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to RCW 9A.44.130. The Frederick case involved a uvenile who was charged with and pleaded guilty to first legree escape. The statute defining first degree escape, *154 RCW 9A.76.110, requires that the defendant escape while being "detained pursuant to a conviction of a felony”. The court reviewed the definitions of "serious offender” and "offense” as set out in the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, RCW 13.40, and it reviewed RCW 9A.04.040(1), which provides that a felony is one of the classes of crime. The court also reviewed RCW 13.04.240, which reads:

An order of court adjudging a child delinquent or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of crime.

The Frederick court found that these provisions illustrate that a juvenile has not committed a crime, including a felony, when the juvenile has committed an offense, defined in RCW 13.40.020(15) as "an act designated ... [as a] crime if committed by an adult”. Thus, the court concluded:

[s]ince Frederick, a juvenile offender, could not be convicted of a felony he also could not be "detained pursuant to a conviction of a felony,” an essential element of first-degree escape. RCW 9A.76.110(1). Accordingly, he cannot be guilty of first-degree escape.

Frederick, 93 Wn.2d at 30.

Here, our review of the language of RCW 9A.44.130 leads us to conclude it was the Legislature’s intent that the statute apply to juveniles under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Contrary to Acheson’s assertion, RCW 9A.44.130 does not require that the defendant be convicted of a felony. Instead, the language of the statute requires, in the disjunctive, registration by "[a]ny adult or juvenile

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Washington v. Meghan Lillian Mianecki
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2017
State of Washington v. Miguel Angel Castillo
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2015
State v. Gossage
138 Wash. App. 298 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
State v. Brothers
2002 NMCA 110 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2002)
State v. Brandt
992 P.2d 1034 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2000)
Oostra v. Holstine
937 P.2d 195 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1997)
In Re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-132744
933 P.2d 1248 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1996)
State v. Munds
922 P.2d 215 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
State ex rel. McMichael v. Fox
912 P.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
State v. Cheatham
908 P.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
State v. Heiskell
895 P.2d 848 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
877 P.2d 217, 75 Wash. App. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-acheson-washctapp-1994.