Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Personal        )
Restraint of:                        )      No. 65799-2-I
                                     )
                                     )      DIVISION ONE
ZELIMIR SHEM McDOWELL,               )
                                     )      UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                      Petitioner.    )
                                     )      FILED:  March 19, 2012

       PER CURIAM.  Zelimir McDowell filed a motion to modify a no-contact order 

imposed as a condition of his sentence in King County Superior Court Nos. 08-1-

05532-5 SEA and 08-1-04929-5 SEA.  The superior court transferred the motion to 

this court for consideration as a personal restraint petition pursuant to Toliver v. 

Olsen, 109 Wn.2d 607, 612-13, 746 P.2d 809 (1987).  McDowell contends that the 

trial court violated his right to parent by imposing an order prohibiting him from 

contacting his daughter for 10 years, despite the fact that she was not a victim of the 

crimes for which he was convicted, nor was she present during McDowell's commission 

of the crimes.  The State concedes that the record does not indicate if the trial court 

considered whether the order was reasonably necessary in scope and duration to 

prevent harm to the child and requests remand for the trial court to consider the 

"reasonably necessary" standard described in In re Pers. Restraint of Rainey, 168 

Wn.2d 367, 377-82, 229 P.3d 686 (2010) (question is whether, on the facts of the case 

at bar, prohibiting defendant from all contact with his child, including indirect or  

No. 65799-2-I/2

supervised contact, is reasonably necessary to realize a compelling State interest); see 

also, State v. Ancira, 107 Wn. App. 650, 654-55, 27 P.3d 1246 (2001) (State failed to 

show that no-contact with defendant's nonvictim children was reasonably necessary to 

protect their safety).

       We accept the State's concession and remand for the trial court to hold a 

hearing, at which McDowell is represented by counsel, to determine whether a 10-

year no-contact order is reasonably necessary in scope and duration to realize a 

compelling State interest, consistent with the reasoning in Rainey.  

       Remanded.

                                 For the court:

                                              2