FILED
JULY 2, 2019
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. 36047-4-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
JAMES NATHEN DOLLARHYDE, )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — James Dollarhyde appeals his conviction and
sentence for failing to register as a sex offender. He raises several issues. One is
dispositive.
RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b) requires sex offender registrants without a fixed address to
report weekly to the county sheriff, to keep an accurate accounting of where they stayed
that week, and to provide the accounting to the county sheriff upon request. To convict a
transient for violating this requirement, a strict reading of the statute requires the State to
prove that the sheriff’s office made a clear and specific request for this accounting for the
week in question. Here, the State failed to present this evidence. We, therefore, reverse
No. 36047-4-III
State v. Dollarhyde
Dollarhyde’s conviction.
FACTS
In 2013, Dollarhyde was convicted as a juvenile for first degree child molestation.
As a result, Dollarhyde is subject to the registration requirements of RCW 9A.44.130.
Stay at jail
In January 2018, Dollarhyde was under supervision by the Department of
Corrections (DOC). On January 2, Dollarhyde underwent a urinalysis pursuant to his
community custody conditions and tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
principal active constituent of cannabis. This violated the terms of Dollarhyde’s
community custody. The DOC detained Dollarhyde and imposed a sanction of two days’
confinement.
Stay at the Larson residence
On January 7, Julie Larson moved to an apartment at 102 East 21st Street in the
city of Goldendale. Julie’s daughter, Melissa Larson, knew Dollarhyde through mutual
friends, and Dollarhyde assisted the family with moving into the apartment. Dollarhyde
slept on the floor of the apartment one to four nights that week.
2
No. 36047-4-III
State v. Dollarhyde
Registering with the sheriff’s office
Dollarhyde had not had a fixed place of residence since sometime in
2015. As a transient, he was required to report weekly to the sheriff’s office.
See RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b).
Dollarhyde completed weekly forms for January 2018. The forms requested
information, including Dollarhyde’s last registered address and new address. On the
forms dated January 2, 2018, January 8, 2018, January 16, 2018, and January 22, 2018,
Dollarhyde wrote “homless.” Exs. 5-8. On the blank backside of the forms, Dollarhyde
wrote: 315 West Allyn, ABC Bridge, and Singing Bridge. On the January 16 and January
22 forms, he indicated the number of nights he stayed in each location that week.
Dollarhyde failed to indicate on the January 8, 2018 form that he had stayed two
nights at the jail that week. He also failed to indicate on the January 16, 2018 form that
he had stayed at Ms. Larson’s apartment that week. For these reasons, the State charged
Dollarhyde with failure to register as a sex offender. Prior to trial, Dollarhyde waived his
right to a jury.
Trial
A sheriff’s employee testified that transient sex offenders must report weekly and
are required to provide a list of addresses where they stayed that week. When asked if
3
No. 36047-4-III
State v. Dollarhyde
she ever met with Dollarhyde to go over the registration requirements, she testified she
met with him in 2015, when he first began registering. It was at this time she provided
him a copy of the registration laws and requested that he disclose on each weekly form
where he stayed that week.
A second employee testified she had asked Dollarhyde to provide an accounting of
his whereabouts on the weekly forms, but did not know whether she had made any such
request in January 2018.
The trial court found Dollarhyde guilty of failing to register as a sex offender and
sentenced him to 50 months of confinement.
Dollarhyde appealed to this court.
ANALYSIS
FAILURE TO REGISTER
Dollarhyde contends there was insufficient evidence that the sheriff’s office
requested him to provide an accounting of where he stayed during the relevant time
period.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper inquiry is
“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational
trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Salinas, 119
4
No. 36047-4-III
State v. Dollarhyde
Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). “[A]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence
must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant.”
Id. Furthermore, “[a] claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State’s evidence and
all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Id. In a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry equal
weight. State v. Goodman, 150 Wn.2d 774, 781, 83 P.3d 410 (2004).
RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b) outlines the registration requirements for transient sex
offenders; it provides:
A person who lacks a fixed residence must report weekly, in person, to the
sheriff of the county where he or she is registered. The weekly report shall
be on a day specified by the county sheriff’s office, and shall occur during
normal business hours. The person must keep an accurate accounting of
where he or she stays during the week and provide it to the county sheriff
upon request.
(Emphasis added.)
Statutes establishing procedures leading to a loss of liberty are construed strictly.
In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 379, 662 P.2d 828 (1983). If a transient is to be incarcerated
for failing to provide an accurate accounting of where he or she stayed the prior week, a
strict reading of RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b) requires the sheriff’s office to make a clear and
specific request each week for that accounting.
5
No. 3604 7-4-111
State v. Dollarhyde
The forms Dollarhyde completed on January 8 and January 16 did not request him
to provide an accounting of where he stayed that week. The State argues there is
sufficient evidence it requested an accounting because Dollarhyde consistently wrote on
the back of the forms where he stayed. The State's argument assumes it is sufficient to
make a continuing request once, perhaps years earlier. As noted above, a strict reading of
RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b) requires a specific request for the week in question.
Here, the evidence was insufficient for a trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable
doubt that the sheriffs office-on January 8, 2018 or January 16, 2018-requested
Dollarhyde to provide an accounting of where he stayed for either of those weeks. 1 His
conviction, therefore, must be reversed.
C.. ~.
Lawrence-Berrey, CJ.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.
1
This could have been avoided by using a form that explicitly requests transients
to list all places stayed that week.
6