IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 84086-0-I
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DARRYL WILLIAM KENNON,
Appellant.
DÍAZ, J. — A jury convicted Darryl William Kennon (Kennon) of burglary in
the first degree and assault, as well as four counts of felony violation of a no-
contact order (NCO), each with domestic violence designations. Following a
partially successful first direct appeal, Kennon was resentenced to life without
parole under the Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA). His sentence
included a five-year NCO with his children and a lifetime NCO with his former wife,
who was the victim of each crime. Kennon appeals, arguing the NCO with his
children violated his constitutional right to parent, and that the POAA is
unconstitutional because of its racially disproportionate impact. Kennon also
challenges the imposition of the victim penalty assessment (VPA) and interest on
restitution. We affirm the judgment and sentence, and remand to the trial court
solely to decide whether to waive Kennon’s VPA.
No. 84086-0-I/2
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
This court’s prior opinion in this matter laid out the facts of this case, so it is
unnecessary to repeat them in their entirety. State v. Kennon, No. 80813-3-I, slip
op. (Wash. Ct. App. August 16, 2021) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/808133.pdf. By way of summary, Z.K., 1
formerly married to Kennon, sought a domestic violence protection order protecting
her and their three children. Kennon, No. 80813-3-I, slip op. at 2. Kennon violated
this first protection order, so the court ordered additional ones, including revoking
Kennon’s ability to see his children. Id.
On August 14, 2018, after contacting Z.K. in an increasingly aggressive
manner, Kennon entered Z.K.’s apartment while the children were present. Id. at
3. He struck her and hit her in the eye with his head. Id. Kennon then chased
Z.K. around the house with a hammer and threatened to kill her. Id. at 4. K.K.
(one of the children) attempted to stop Kennon multiple times. Id. Z.K. and the
children eventually escaped and Kennon drove away. Id.
Z.K. sustained an orbital wall fracture. Id. at 5. K.K. has since been treated
for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
B. Procedural Background
A jury found Kennon guilty of several felonies including, relevantly, a “most
serious offense” under RCW 9.94A.030(32)(a), namely the burglary in the first
degree, and four counts of felony violation of an NCO. Kennon, No. 80813-3-I, slip
1 We refer to her and later, the children, by their initials to protect their privacy.
2
No. 84086-0-I/3
op. at 23. At sentencing, the State offered Kennon’s two prior convictions for child
molestation in the first degree and rape of a child in the first degree, each of which
were also most serious offenses. Id. at 23. The State argued the trial court must
impose a life sentence without the possibility of release (LWOP) under the POAA
(RCW 9.04A.570). Id. at 7.
Kennon argued the POAA was unconstitutional because it requires the
imposition of a cruel and unusual punishment (LWOP), which is disproportionately
inflicted upon Black men. Id. at 24-25. The trial court declined to impose LWOP
under the POAA. Id. at 7. Instead, it imposed an exceptional sentence of 176
months and entered lifetime NCOs protecting Kennon’s children and Z.K. Id. at 8.
Kennon appealed. Id. As part of his first appeal, he argued the NCOs’
prohibition on contacting his children violated his fundamental right to parent. Id.
at 20. The State cross-appealed the trial court’s failure to impose a life sentence.
Id. at 23.
In August 2021, this court partially agreed with Kennon and remanded the
case for resentencing. Id. at 30. We ordered the trial court to reassess the
parameters of the NCO to “(1) address whether the no-contact orders ‘remain[ ]
reasonably necessary in light of the State’s interests in protecting’ K.K., M.K., and
V.K. from harm, (2) if they are, then the court must narrowly tailor the orders, ‘both
in terms of scope and duration,’ and (3) the court should consider less restrictive
alternatives when it comes to the orders’ scope and duration.” Id. at 22-23.
While noting that “there is substantial evidence that the POAA applies to
men of color at alarmingly disproportionate rates,” this court concluded that it
3
No. 84086-0-I/4
“cannot revisit this issue” on the record before it because “our Supreme Court has
concluded that the POAA does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment” and
Kennon provided no data or “evidence to support ‘a clear showing that the rule is
incorrect and harmful.’” Id. at 26-28 (quoting State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1, 34,
427 P.3d 621 (2018)).
C. Re-sentencing and Present Appeal
On May 20, 2022, the trial court resentenced Kennon to LWOP. The court
maintained the lifetime NCO for Z.K., but modified the children’s NCO to five years.
During this time, however, Kennon could call them once per year and write them
two letters per year. The State referred to it as an “appropriate compromise”
because if the children “do not wish to have that contact, they will not have it.”
Kennon timely appeals.
II. ANALYSIS
A. No Contact Order
Kennon argues the revised NCOs infringe upon his constitutional right to
parent his children because (1) the written NCO did not comport with the trial
court’s stated intent in the resentencing hearing, and (2) by prohibiting incidental
contact with Z.K, the NCO hindered his ability to contact his children. He made no
objections to these provisions at his resentencing.
“[F]or an objection to a community custody condition to be entitled to review
for the first time on appeal, (1) it must be manifest constitutional error or a
sentencing condition that . . . is ‘illegal or erroneous’ as a matter of law, and (2) it
must be ripe.” State v. Peters, 10 Wn. App. 2d 574, 583, 455 P.3d 141 (2019)
4
No. 84086-0-I/5
(quoting State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 833, 344 P.3d 680 (2015)). 2
Parents have a fundamental constitutional right “to the care, custody, and
companionship of their children.” State v. DeLeon, 11 Wn. App. 2d 837, 841, 456
P.3d 405 (2020) (citing State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 34, 195 P.3d 940 (2008)).
“We generally review sentencing conditions for abuse of discretion.” In re
Rainey, 168 Wn.2d 367, 374, 229 P.3d 686 (2010). “But we more carefully review
conditions that interfere with a fundamental constitutional right, such as the
fundamental right to the care, custody, and companionship of one's children.” Id.
(citing Warren, 165 Wn.2d at 32). “Such conditions must be ‘sensitively imposed’
so that they are ‘reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the
State and public order.’” Rainey, 168 Wn.2d at 374 (quoting Warren, 165 Wn.2d
at 32). More specifically, courts may limit the fundamental right to parent when
“reasonably necessary” to protect a child’s physical or mental health. DeLeon, 11
Wn. App. 2d at 841 (quoting State v. Howard, 182 Wn. App. 91, 101, 328 P.3d 969
(2014)).
1. Clarity of the No Contact Order
Kennon does not challenge the constitutionality of the NCO as a whole,
however interpreted, but rather he raises legal challenges to how it will be
2 The State argues this court should not consider this assignment of error because
Kennon “has not established that they represent manifest constitutional error.”
While that may be true, we still may, under RAP 2.5 and Peters, 10 Wn. App. 2d
at 583, consider whether the condition is “erroneous as a matter of law,” such as
those that implicate “principles of due process,” which is itself a “narrow category.”
Blazina, 182 Wn.2d at 834 (citing “vague community custody requirements” as
“creat[ing] this sort of sentencing error). Regardless, we choose to exercise our
discretion, but will focus exclusively on whether any legal error occurred.
5
No. 84086-0-I/6
implemented in practice unless it is remanded for modification.
Specifically, Kennon first argues the court’s written NCO is legally
erroneous unless it is modified (a) to reflect the judge’s oral ruling that the order
may be modified in the future, and (b) to more accurately or more definitively reflect
the frequency of contact allowed for each child.
At Kennon’s resentencing hearing, at the time of imposing the modified
NCO, the court stated:
I will impose the five-year no-contact order, with a provision that you
can write to each child twice a year; and, you can pick the dates:
whether you want to pick a birthday . . . I’m going to allow a phone
call once a year, for each child; they don’t have to accept it . . . [b]ut,
I want to give them the opportunity, if they want to choose to accept
it . . .
(emphasis added).
The court further specified:
Once they reach their majority, of course, they’re free to come to the
Court, and ask for those no-contact orders to be modified, or dropped
altogether, so that they can come and visit you, if they wish to do
that.
The written NCO in Kennon’s judgment and sentence contains a
handwritten notation next to each child’s name providing the duration of “5 years,”
and a second notation stating, “Defendant may make one phone call/year & write
2 letters/year (see RCW 10.99 orders).”
As told by Kennon, the trial court’s handwritten note could “erroneously be
read to mean Kennon is allowed to make one phone call per year and write two
6
No. 84086-0-I/7
letters per year in total for the three children considered as a group.” (emphasis
added).
There is no dispute that the NCO provision of Kennon’s judgment and
sentence lists the duration of the term, the protected persons, and cross-
references the contemporaneously-entered RCW 10.99, which imposes other
obligations upon Kennon. Kennon alleges no legal error in any of those provisions.
Kennon appears to suggest that the legal error is in the clarity of the details of the
trial court’s orders.
Kennon, however, offers no binding authority to support the assertion that
a trial court must provide details, first, on how and when a protected person may
seek to modify an NCO. 3 “Where no authorities are cited in support of a
proposition, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may assume
that counsel, after diligent search, has found none.” DeHeer v. Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962). We will not create such
an obligation here.
Similarly, Kennon offers no authority to support the proposition that it is legal
error for a court to fail to anticipate (mis)interpretations of its written order, or to fail
to identify and resolve any possible inconsistency between it and the court’s verbal
order. Kennon certainly cites no authority that a trial court abuses its discretion if
it does not do so. Where a party fails to provide citation to support a legal
3 Kennon claims that State v. Brown, No. 75627-3-1, slip op. at 7 (Wash. Ct. App.
Feb. 12, 2018) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/756273.pdf.
set forth such a “requirement.” That claim is simply factually wrong. This court
held, in that unpublished opinion, that courts “should” describe how conditions
limiting a parent’s time with their children may be modified, but did not require it.
7
No. 84086-0-I/8
argument, we assume counsel, like the court, has found none. State v. Loos, 14
Wn. App. 2d 748, 758, 473 P.3d 1229 (2020) (citing State v. Arredondo, 188 Wn.2d
244, 262, 394 P.3d 348 (2017)).
We find no legal error with that portion of the trial court’s NCO.
2. Incidental Contact with Z.K.
Kennon asks us to remand the order to be clarified to allow incidental
contact with Z.K., when Kennon contacts his children by phone, in writing, or
through a future court process. Limiting incidental contact between parents,
though inconvenient for co-parenting, is not an unconstitutional infringement on
the fundamental right to parent.
The State has a compelling interest in preventing future harm to the victims
of the crime and in protecting children. State v. Phillips, 6 Wn. App. 2d 651, 676,
431 P.3d 1056 (2018) (citing Rainey, 168 Wn.2d at 377). In both Foster and
Phillips, the courts held that NCOs prohibiting the defendant’s contact with the
protected caregiving parent did not infringe on the defendant’s fundamental right
to parent their child. Phillips, 6 Wn. App. 2d at 676; State v. Foster, 128 Wn. App.
932, 939, 117 P.3d 1175 (2005).
Phillips is similar to the present case. There, Phillips’ former spouse had
an NCO protecting her from Phillips after he physically assaulted her while her
child was present and while she was holding her infant. Phillips, 6 Wn. App. 2d at
656-57. The court imposed an NCO protecting the mother and the child, but not
the infant. Id. at 676. Phillips argued that preventing contact with the mother and
child impermissibly infringed upon his right to parent the infant. Id. This court
8
No. 84086-0-I/9
concluded “Although not having contact with [victim] will make access to his child
more difficult, it does not necessarily restrict contact between Phillips and his
child.” Id.
Similarly, here, the State’s interest in protecting the physical and mental
well-being of the children is appropriately weighed against inconvenience toward
Kennon. DeLeon, 11 Wn. App. 2d at 841. As Kennon implicitly concedes, it was
not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that an NCO protecting Z.K. was
appropriate, particularly since Kennon attacked her in front of the children. See,
e.g., Kennon, No. 80813-3-I, slip op. at 4. Further, K.K. explained her need for
mental health treatment after the incident. The court did not abuse its significant
discretion in not revising the NCO protecting Z.K. to accommodate the changes to
her children’s inter-related NCO.
In short, the trial court did not commit legal error in how it weighed the need
for protection of Z.K. and the children against Kennon’s ability to parent or how the
NCOs structured or reflected that balance.
B. Persistent Offender Accountability Act
Kennon argues the POAA is unconstitutional because, in short, courts
disproportionately impose LWOP against Black people. However, the
constitutionality of the POAA, despite its numerical racial disproportionality, is
settled law. State v. Moretti, 193 Wn.2d 809, 830, 446 P.3d 609 (2019)
(“Regardless of any personal opinions as to the wisdom of this statute, we have
‘long deferred to the legislative judgment that repeat offenders may face an
enhanced penalty because of their recidivism’”) (quoting State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d
9
No. 84086-0-I/10
387, 390-91, 402, 617 P. 2d 720 (1980)). Thus, we decline to revisit this question
as our prior decision is neither “clearly erroneous,” under RAP 2.5(c), and there is
no “clear showing that the rule is incorrect and harmful,” as in State v. Gregory,
192 Wn.2d 1, 34, 427 P.3d 621 (2018). On the record before us, Kennon has not
presented sufficient evidence or reason to revisit or reverse our prior holding. 4
C. Victim Penalty Assessment and Interest on Restitution
After filing his opening brief, Kennon filed unopposed supplemental briefing
to strike the VPA due to new legislation and caselaw. Kennon further argued this
court should remand the matter to the trial court to address whether to waive the
interest on Kennon’s restitution. The State does not contest Kennon’s right to seek
remand to strike the VPA. We will accept that concession and remand this matter
to strike the VPA fee. However, the issue of interest accrual is not ripe and, thus,
we will not consider it.
In addition to the $500 VPA fee, Kennon’s judgment and sentence required
him to pay restitution to the clerk of the court for costs associated with the victim’s
medical treatment. The judgment also indicated that “[r]estitution shall bear
interest pursuant to RCW 10.82.090.” Kennon did not challenge the interest on
restitution in his first appeal or at his resentencing hearing.
After the trial court resentenced him, our legislature revised RCW
10.82.090(2)-(3). LAWS OF 2022, ch. 260 § 12. The statute now allows the trial
4 Among the compilation of third-party statements, reports, and non-peer-reviewed
studies about the criminal justice system generally, Kennon provides a declaration
from an attorney on an unrelated matter. The State asks us to disregard the
declaration as procedurally improper. To the extent we construe this request as a
motion to strike, it is denied as moot given the resolution of this matter.
10
No. 84086-0-I/11
court to waive the imposition of interest on restitution and expands the ways in
which a defendant may obtain relief from interest on restitution, including after
paying off the principal or after a showing that interest accrued while a defendant
was incarcerated. RCW 10.82.090(2)-(3).
Kennon does not challenge the imposition of the restitution order itself, but
asks this court to “remand for the trial court to address whether to impose interest
on the restitution” or to “to waive interest on restitution.” (emphasis added).
Kennon otherwise, in one sentence, simply cites to a recent decision of this court,
which he seems to suggest stands for the proposition that all legal financial
obligations pending on direct appeal are subject to remand. Supp. Br. Of Appellant
at 9 (citing State v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 6, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023)).
RCW 10.82.090(3) provides, in pertinent part:
(b) The court may waive or reduce interest on the restitution portion of the
legal financial obligations only if the principal has been paid in full . . .;
(c) The court may, following the offender’s release from total confinement,
waive or reduce interest on restitution that accrued during the offender’s
period of incarceration if the court finds that the offender does not have the
current or likely future ability to pay.
In other words, a trial court may waive or reduce interest on restitution in
one of two situations: (b) only if “the principal has been paid in full” or (c) after a
defendant’s release from confinement. RCW 10.82.090(3). Obviously, neither of
these circumstances have happened and may never happen, and for these
reasons, the matter is not ripe. See, e.g., State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531, 534,
354 P.3d 832 (2015) (a matter is “ripe ‘if the issues raised are primarily legal, do
not require further factual development, and the challenged action is final.’”)
11
No. 84086-0-I/12
(quoting State v. Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 786-91, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010)).
Clearly, for this claim to be ripe, further factual development is needed. We need
not reach any further related issue at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm Kennon’s judgment and sentence and remand to the trial court
solely to strike the VPA fee.
WE CONCUR:
12