State v. Cheatham

908 P.2d 381, 80 Wash. App. 269
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJanuary 8, 1996
Docket35309-8-I
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 908 P.2d 381 (State v. Cheatham) 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. Cheatham, 908 P.2d 381, 80 Wash. App. 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

*271 Agid, J.

The juvenile court found Charles Roland Cheatham guilty of violating former RCW 9.41.040, which criminalizes the possession of firearms by persons previously convicted or adjudicated of a crime of violence or a felony involving a firearm. To establish Cheatham’s predicate offense, the State introduced evidence of his 1989 juvenile disposition for second degree burglary, a crime designated as a crime of violence under former RCW 9.41.010(2)(a). On appeal, Cheatham contends there is insufficient evidence to uphold his conviction. He argues that the wording of former RCW 9.41.040 is insufficiently precise to incorporate prior juvenile offenses within its scope and, therefore, it only prohibits possession of firearms by persons with prior adult convictions. 1 We hold that although juveniles cannot technically be convicted of crimes under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA), the term "crime of violence” in former RCW 9.41.040(1) applies to both juvenile dispositions and adult convictions for the offenses listed there. Accordingly, we affirm Cheatham’s conviction.

Discussion

Washington’s Uniform Firearms Act, Chapter 9.41, governs the possession, use and purchase of firearms and dangerous weapons. The Legislature enacted the law in 1935 and has amended it several times since then. The 1992 version of the statute was in effect when Cheatham was charged. It provides:

*272 A person is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a short firearm or pistol, if, having previously been convicted or, as a juvenile, adjudicated in this state or elsewhere of a crime of violence or of a felony in which a firearm was used or displayed, the person owns or has in his possession any short firearm or pistol.

See former RCW 9.41.040(1) (italics ours). The State must therefore establish as the predicate offense that the defendant committed either a crime of violence 2 or a felony-involving a firearm. Cheatham contends that although second degree burglary is a crime of violence, his prior juvenile disposition for that offense is insufficient to establish a predicate offense under the statute because juveniles cannot be convicted or adjudicated guilty of "crimes,” only of "offenses.”

Cheatham relies on In re Frederick, 93 Wn.2d 28, 604 P.2d 953 (1980), to support his argument. The question in Frederick was whether a juvenile could violate former RCW 9A.76.110(1), which defined first degree escape as an escape while being "detained pursuant to a conviction of a felony.” 93 Wn.2d at 30. The court held that although Frederick escaped while in detention, he did not violate the statute because juveniles cannot be convicted of felonies and he, therefore, could not have been detained pursuant to a felony conviction. The court relied on the JJA, which provides that a court order "adjudging a child delinquent or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case be deemed a conviction of [a] crime.” RCW 13.04.240. In light of this provision, it reasoned that a juvenile cannot commit a "crime,” including a felony, when he has committed an "offense,” which the JJA defines as an act that would be designated as a *273 crime if committed by an adult. 93 Wn.2d at 30. See RCW 13.40.020(19).

Cheatham is correct that under Frederick and the JJA, a juvenile cannot be convicted of a crime or a felony. But we do not agree that these observations constrain us to hold that former RCW 9.41.040 does not incorporate, as predicate offenses, prior juvenile adjudications for offenses that would be crimes of violence or felonies involving a firearm if committed by an adult. Cheatham’s argument overlooks a critical distinction between the statute at issue in Frederick and the one we consider here. The former made no reference to juveniles at all. In contrast, the statute under which Cheatham was convicted specifically states that it applies to persons who have previously "as a juvenile [been] adjudicated . . . of a crime of violence or of a felony in which a firearm was used or displayed.” Frederick was concerned with whether a provision of the adult criminal code can apply to a juvenile where it contains no reference to juveniles in light of the JJA’s mandate that a juvenile adjudication shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime. 3 The question here is whether the Legislature’s wording of a provision of the adult criminal code, which clearly evinces its intent to apply to juveniles or juvenile offenses, is sufficiently precise to do so.

This court recently addressed a similar issue in State v. S.M.H., 76 Wn. App. 550, 887 P.2d 903 (1995). There we held, in response to an argument similar to the one Cheatham raises, that juveniles are not required to register as sex offenders under RCW 9A.44.130 following a finding of sexual motivation under RCW 13.40.135. 4 76 Wn. App. at 559. RCW 9A.44.130, the registration statute, provides:

*274 (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. . . .
(6) "Sex offense” for the purpose of RCW 9A.44.130 . . . means any offense defined as a sex offense by RCW 9.94A.030.

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

Related

State v. M.Y.G.
Washington Supreme Court, 2022
State v. Sweeney
125 Wash. App. 77 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2005)
State v. Johnson
76 P.3d 265 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2003)
State v. Gilmer
981 P.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)
State v. J.H.
96 Wash. App. 167 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)
State v. Wright
946 P.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1997)
State v. McKinley
929 P.2d 1145 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1997)
In Re the Personal Restraint of Weaver
929 P.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
State v. E.C.
922 P.2d 152 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
908 P.2d 381, 80 Wash. App. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cheatham-washctapp-1996.