Opinion
No. 37335-1-II.
February 3, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, No. 07-2-01421-3, Gordon Godfrey, J., entered February 4, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
Treeva Cohee appeals from a superior court ruling imposing a two year protection order against her. She argues that the trial court erred in issuing the order because it did not hold a proper hearing. She also argues substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that she represented a credible threat. We affirm.
FACTS
Cohee, Gail Nichols, and Shawne Rountree shared a home on Strawberry Hill in Elma. They worked at the same location.
Gail Nichols is also known as Gail Ryan.
During the night of November 12, 2007, Cohee asked Rountree to move her bed because she felt crowded. When Rountree did not respond, Cohee pushed her bed. Cohee testified that Rountree then "became ballistic, flew off the handle and asked [Nichols] for the gun." Report of Proceedings (RP) (Nov. 26, 2007) at 7. Rountree repeatedly asked Nichols to give her the gun until Nichols eventually gave it to her. Cohee then went outside to call a 911 dispatcher who advised she leave until the police arrive. When the police arrived, they did not find a gun at the residence.
On November 15, Nichols petitioned the court for a protection order against Cohee. In her petition, Nichols wrote that after the police left the residence, Cohee threatened her. Nichols wrote that Cohee left threatening messages, spit in her face, hit her in the eye and lip, tried to get her fired, and caused her to fear for her life.
At the first hearing, on November 26, the women appeared pro se. After the trial court asked about previous domestic violence incidents, Cohee admitted that police had arrested her approximately a year earlier for fighting with Rountree. After Cohee revealed that a police investigation may be pending, the judge concluded the hearing, scheduled another for February, and issued a temporary protection order against Cohee in order to protect Nichols.
At the second hearing, on February 4, 2008, Cohee challenged the necessity of the protection order. The trial court questioned Nichols. Nichols told the trial court, "I just feel like [Cohee is] a danger because she's been stalking [Rountree] and she — she's not supposed to be around her. [Rountree] lives with me. So, this lady has been stalking us, you know." RP (Feb. 4, 2008) at 6. Nichols related an incident where she reported to the police that Cohee had violated the temporary protection order by entering a restaurant where Nichols was eating.
After hearing from the women, the trial court granted Nichols a protection order against Cohee. The trial court wrote the protection order for two years, until February 4, 2010. Cohee appeals the trial court's order.
ANALYSIS
Cohee contends the trial court violated her due process rights and abused its discretion by issuing a protection order. She asserts that the trial court held an improper hearing and relied too heavily on Nichols's affidavit.
Under RCW 26.50.060, a court may issue a protection order after notice and a hearing. "`The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wn.2d 460, 467, 145 P.3d 1185 (2006) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). As the Gourley court recognized, chapter 26.50 RCW provides several procedural protections:
(1) a petition to the court, accompanied by an affidavit setting forth facts under oath, (2) notice to the respondent within five days of the hearing, (3) a hearing before a judicial officer where the petitioner and respondent may testify, (4) a written order, (5) the opportunity to move for revision in superior court, (6) the opportunity to appeal, and (7) a one-year limitation on the protection order if it restrains the respondent from contacting minor children.
Gourley, 158 Wn.2d at 468-69.
In Gourley, our Supreme Court held "[t]he due process requirements of being heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner are protected by the procedures outlined in chapter 26.50 RCW." 158 Wn.2d at 468. Cohee's due process challenge focuses on whether the court provided her "a hearing before a judicial officer where the petitioner and respondent may testify." Gourley, 158 Wn.2d at 468-69. The trial court provided such an opportunity at the hearings on November 26, 2007, and February 4, 2008. Although the trial court's hearings were both brief, it heard from all parties regarding the order of protection and met the requirements of chapter 26.50 RCW with respect to providing an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, Cohee's argument the trial court abused its discretion and failed to protect her procedural due process rights fails.
Cohee next contends insufficient evidence supported the trial court's order of protection. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person that the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000).
Here, the trial court found "[Cohee] committed domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010 and represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [Nichols]" and issued a protection order. Clerk's Papers at 16. In her affidavit, Nichols averred that Cohee made her fear for her life and she recounted specific acts of violence and intimidation directed at both her and her roommate, Rountree. Additionally, Nichols testified that Cohee had stalked her on more than one occasion. Thus, substantial evidence supported the trial court's order and Cohee's argument fails.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
BRIDGEWATER, J. and VAN DEREN, C.J., concur.