State of Washington v. Jerry Wayne Clark ( 2024 )

FILED
OCTOBER 31, 2024
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. 39858-7-III
)
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
JERRY WAYNE CLARK, )
)
Appellant. )
LAWRENCE-BERREY, C.J. — Jerry Wayne Clark appeals his conviction for felony
violation of a no-contact order. He argues the State presented insufficient evidence that
he was the same Jerry Wayne Clark named in the violated order, and in the two predicate
convictions that elevated his current offense to a felony. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
In February 2023, Officer Caleb Howard responded to a no-contact order violation
at 1413 West Kiernan Avenue in Spokane. Dispatch notified Officer Howard that the
party in violation of the order was Jerry Clark. The party the order protected was Larry
Michael McFarland. Under the order, Clark could not come within 1,000 feet of Mr.
McFarland’s home. Mr. McFarland lived at the Kiernan address, and had lived there for
8-10 years. Once at the Kiernan address, Officer Howard found Clark sitting on the
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
porch. A recent jail booking photograph assisted Officer Howard in identifying Clark.
The State charged Clark with felony violation of a no-contact order.
At trial, Officer Howard testified to the above encounter at the Kiernan address.
John Ballantyne, Mr. McFarland’s roommate, also testified. Mr. Ballantyne stated that
(1) he was familiar with Clark as Mr. McFarland’s stepson, (2) he was aware of the no-
contact order restraining Clark from contacting Mr. McFarland, (3) he was present when
officers arrived to arrest Clark, and (4) Mr. McFarland was 74 years old. Moreover, Mr.
Ballantyne identified Clark as the defendant present at trial.
In addition to the above testimony, the State offered as exhibits the following
certified records:
• 2020 protection order prohibiting “Jerry W. Clark” from coming within
1,000 feet of Mr. McFarland’s home. Ex. P-1 at 1. The order describes
Clark as a six-foot-one-inch white male with blond hair and blue eyes,
weighing 169 pounds, born May 13, 1972. Ex. P-1 at 1. The order lists
Mr. McFarland’s birthdate as April 4, 1949. Ex. P-1 at 1. The order further
describes Mr. McFarland and Clark as having a stepfather-stepson
relationship. Ex. P-1 at 2.
• 2012 docket notes showing a no-contact order violation by Jerry Wayne
Clark, Jr. Ex. P-5 at 1. The notes list Clark’s address as 1413 West
2
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
Kiernan Avenue. Ex. P-5 at 1. The notes also describe Clark as a six-foot
white male with blonde hair and blue eyes born May 13, 1972. Ex. P-5 at
2.
• 2001 docket notes showing a no-contact order violation by Jerry Wayne
Clark, Jr. Ex. P-3 at 1. The notes list Clark’s address as 1413 West
Kiernan Avenue. Ex. P-3 at 1.
The defense elected not to present evidence. The jury convicted Clark of the
charged count.
Clark timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Clark argues the State failed to prove that he, Jerry Wayne Clark, was the same
Jerry Wayne Clark the evidence implicated. We disagree.
Standard of review
Evidence supports a defendant’s conviction where “any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt . . . viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the State.” State v. Treat, 109 Wn. App. 419, 426,
35 P.3d 1192 (2001). A sufficiency-of-evidence challenge “admits the truth of the
State’s evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom.” Id.3
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
Felony violation of a no-contact order: proof required
A defendant violates a no-contact order where he willfully engages in contact with
another that he knows is prohibited by a valid order. RCW 7.105.450(1)(a)(ii), (iii); State
v. Briggs, 18 Wn. App. 2d 544, 550, 492 P.3d 218 (2021). Violating a no-contact order is
a class C felony where the defendant has two previous convictions for violating such
orders. RCW 7.105.450(5). To establish previous convictions, the State must prove with
independent evidence that the person it has charged is indeed the person subject to those
earlier convictions. State v. Hunter, 29 Wn. App. 218, 221, 627 P.2d 1339 (1981). That
the defendant on trial shares a name with the person previously convicted is not alone
sufficient to prove identity. Id.Here, Clark disputes the State’s proof of his identity. He argues the State, contrary
to Hunter, linked him to the 2020 no-contact order and the predicate convictions merely
by name alone. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree.
Sufficient evidence the 2020 order restrained the defendant
Testimony from Officer Howard and Mr. Ballantyne proved that Clark was the
party restrained by the 2020 protection order.
In addition to identifying Clark by name as the person on the porch at 1413 West
Kiernan Avenue, Officer Howard stated that Clark resembled the man whose photograph
dispatch had associated with the violated protection order. Officer Howard also
4
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
identified the defendant in the courtroom as that same person—the person on the porch as
well as the person in the booking photograph. This evidence linked the defendant
standing trial to the violated order.
Moreover, Mr. Ballantyne testified that (1) he was familiar with Clark as Mr.
McFarland’s stepson, (2) he was aware of the no-contact order restraining Clark from
contacting Mr. McFarland, and (3) he was present when officers arrived to confront Clark
about violating the order. Like Officer Howard before him, Mr. Ballantyne testified that
the Jerry Clark he knew—and knew was subject to the 2020 order—was indeed the Jerry
Clark present in the courtroom.
Finally, the protection order provided a height, weight, hair color, and eye color
for the restrained party—information the jury could have compared against the defendant
they saw in court.
For these reasons, sufficient evidence established that the Jerry Clark in court was
the same Jerry Clark the no-contact order restrained.
Sufficient evidence the defendant was the Jerry Clark described in the 2012 docket
notes
Although the 2012 docket notes provided less information than the 2020
protection order, the notes nevertheless sufficiently identified Clark as the Jerry Wayne
Clark, Jr. whose conviction the notes memorialized.
5
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
First, the notes identified the convicted Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr.’s address as the
same Kiernan Avenue address where law enforcement arrested the current defendant.
In other words, for this not to have been the same Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr., it would have
needed to be mere coincidence that a man by that same name—indeed, by those same
three names, plus “Junior”—was associated with the same Kiernan Avenue address in
2012. While Clark argues correctly that such a coincidence is possible, our standard on
review is not to credit all remote possibilities, but rather to take all evidence and
inferences in the light most favorable to the State. Treat, 109 Wn. App. at 426. Here, the
reasonable inference favorable to the State is that the Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. associated
with 1413 West Kiernan Avenue in 2012 was the same Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. who was
arrested at that address in 2023.
Second, the 2012 notes provided a physical description and birthday for the
convicted Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. that matched the physical description and birthday of
the Jerry W. Clark restrained by the 2020 order (and, if the jury so determined, the Jerry
Wayne Clark, Jr. who physically appeared in the courtroom before them). Clearly, the
appearance of this information in the 2012 docket notes, in conjunction with the address
provided in those notes, foreclosed any possibility that the man convicted in 2012 was
not the man restrained by the 2020 order, and therefore the man standing trial.
6
No. 39858-7-III
State v. Clark
Sufficient evidence the defendant was the Jerry Clark described in the 2001 docket
notes
The 2001 docket notes provided less information than the 2020 protection order or
the 2012 docket notes. But the 2001 notes did—like the 2012 notes—identify the
convicted Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr.’s address as the same Kiernan Avenue address where
law enforcement arrested the current defendant. This would have suggested to the jury
that the Jerry Clark convicted in 2001 was the same Jerry Clark standing trial.
Moreover, as noted previously, the man identified in the 2012 notes almost
certainly was the same man restrained by the 2020 protection order, and therefore the
man standing trial in 2023. In light of that, it becomes even less likely that the man
convicted in 2001 was not that same man. After all, the 2012 notes—in conjunction with
the 2020 protection order—establish 1413 West Kiernan Avenue as an address where the
current defendant once lived. For the 2001 Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. not to have been the
same man as the defendant, one Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. would have needed to live at that
address in 2001, and then a separate Jerry Wayne Clark, Jr. would have needed, in the
next 11 years, to move in. Even if such an occurrence is conceivably possible, it is not
possible enough to warrant reversal under the applicable standard of review. Id.7
No. 39858-7-111
State v. Clark
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
(~ . . . ,.,. •...\b..._.._1~ , c.~
Lawrence-Berrey, CJ.
WE CONCUR:
Fearing, i ) Pennell, J.
8