[No. 35338-5-II. Division Two. November 14, 2007.]
[1] Statutes Construction Question of Law or Fact Review Standard of Review. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. [2] Statutes Construction Unambiguous Language Plain Meaning In General. When a statute's meaning is plain on its face, a court follows that plain meaning without resorting to statutory construction. [3] Statutes Construction Ambiguity What Constitutes In General. A statute is not ambiguous unless it can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way. [4] Criminal Law Statutes Construction Rule of Lenity In General. Under the rule of lenity, when two possible constructions of a statute are permissible, the statute is construed strictly against the State in favor of a criminal defendant. [5] Automobiles Operator's License Revocation Commission of Felony Use Accomplishment of Crime Necessity. To support revocation of a person's driver's license under RCW 46.20.285(4), which requires revocation for one year if a person is convicted of "any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used," a motor vehicle must have been employed in accomplishing the crime. [6] Automobiles Operator's License Revocation Commission of Felony Use Test. For purposes of RCW 46.20.285(4), which requires the revocation of a defendant's driver's license if the defendant used a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony offense, the relevant test for "use" is whether the felony had some reasonable relation to the operation of a motor vehicle or whether the use of a motor vehicle contributed in some reasonable degree to the commission of the felony. "Use" is not shown where the vehicle was incidental to the commission of the crime. A relationship in any form between a vehicle and a crime is insufficient to establish "use." For the statute to be implicated, the vehicle must have been an instrumentality of the crime, such that the offender used it in some fashion to carry out the crime. [7] Automobiles Operator's License Revocation Commission of Felony Use Spray-Painting Police Vehicle. The spray-painting of a police patrol car in violation of RCW 9A.48.080(1)(b), which defines the felony offense of second degree malicious mischief by physically damaging an emergency vehicle, does not involve the "use" of a motor vehicle within the meaning of RCW 46.20.285(4), which requires the revocation of a defendant's driver's license if the defendant used a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony offense. Nature of Action: Prosecution of a juvenile for the felony offense of second degree malicious mischief for physically damaging an emergency vehicle. The charge was based on the juvenile's act of spray-painting a police patrol car. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 06-8-00265-0, James M. Marshall, J. Pro Tem., on July 24, 2006, entered an adjudication on a plea of guilty and ordered that notice of the adjudication be given to the Department of Licensing for revocation of the juvenile's driver's license under a statute requiring revocation for using a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony. Court of Appeals: Holding that the juvenile's act of spray-painting a police vehicle did not constitute the operation or use of a motor vehicle within the meaning of the revocation statute, the court reverses the trial court's ruling on the license revocation issue and remands the case with instructions to vacate the order notifying the department of the juvenile's felony adjudication. Stephanie C. Cunningham-, for appellant. Gerald A. Horne-, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathleen Proctor-, Deputy, for respondent. Ά1 HOUGHTON, C.J. B.E.K. appeals a juvenile court order notifying the Department of Licensing (DOL) of his second degree malicious mischief felony conviction for spray-painting a police vehicle, resulting in a one year revocation of his driver's license. He argues that his act does not constitute a vehicle use in the commission of a felony under RCW 46.20.285(4). We agree and reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the revocation order. FACTS Ά2 On October 19, 2005, Pierce County Sheriff's Deputy Wulick contacted Deputy Larsen at his residence regarding Larsen's report of vandalism to his patrol car between the night of October 10 and the morning of October 11. Larsen reported that unknown person(s) had spray-painted his patrol car with purple paint. Spray-painted on the hood and windshield was the phrase, "$20 pig," and sprayed on the driver's side door was the phrase, "4:20 fing pigy [sic]!!" Clerk's Papers at 2. Ά3 The same day, Wulick contacted 17-year-old B.E.K. regarding the incident, who admitted that he and two adult friends had spray-painted the patrol car. Ά4 The State charged B.E.K. with second degree malicious mischief for physically damaging an emergency vehicle, RCW 9A.48.080(1)(b). Ά5 At the plea and sentencing hearing, B.E.K. challenged whether the juvenile court should notify the DOL of his adjudication, arguing that Washington's driver's license revocation statute did not apply because he did not use a vehicle during the commission of his felony. The juvenile court entered a disposition order against him for second degree malicious mischief but reserved the issue on his motion whether it would report his adjudication to the DOL. Ά6 A juvenile court commissioner denied B.E.K.'s motion and ordered the DOL be notified of his adjudication but stayed the order pending B.E.K.'s motion to revise. Ά7 The juvenile court later denied his motion to revise and ordered the DOL be notified of his adjudication. It stayed the order pending B.E.K.'s appeal. ANALYSIS Ά8 B.E.K. contends that, for purposes of RCW 46.20.285(4), one uses a vehicle in the commission of a felony when he operates or actively employs the vehicle to accomplish a crime but not when the vehicle is merely the target of the crime. Ά12 Based on this test, Washington courts have found that the statute clearly applies where the commission of a felony directly involves motor vehicle operation. See. e.g., State v. Dykstra, 127 Wn. App. 1, 11-12, 110 P.3d 758 (2005) (finding the Batten II test was met for a first degree theft conviction where the appellant was part of an auto theft ring and cars were stolen, driven around to find other cars to steal, and used during lookout operations); State v. Griffin, 126 Wn. App. 700, 708, 109 P.3d 870 (2005) (finding that the use of a car directly contributed to the commission of the crime of cocaine possession where the appellant received cocaine in exchange for giving someone a ride in the car). Ά13 Likewise, for a possession crime, we have found a sufficient nexus to invoke the statute where the defendant used a vehicle as a repository to store contraband. See Batten, 95 Wn. App. at 131 (for a crime of possession, the mere presence of the prohibited item in a vehicle is sufficient to permit the State to revoke a driver's license because the vehicle was the location where the item was kept); Batten II, 140 Wn.2d at 366 ("[e]mploying a vehicle as a place to store and conceal the weapon, in our judgment, creates a sufficient relationship between the use of the vehicle and the crime of unlawful possession of the weapon to bring the possession of the weapon within the reach of the statute"). Ά14 On the other hand, we have held that RCW 46.20.285(4) does not apply where the vehicle was incidental to the commission of the crime. See State v. Wayne, 134 Wn. App. 873, 875-76, 142 P.3d 1125 (2006) (finding that, while the use of a car to conceal a controlled substance fell within the meaning of the license revocation statute, the statute did not apply where the contraband item was found on the appellant's person because there was no reasonable relationship between the crime of possession and the vehicle, and the vehicle itself did not contribute in some reasonable degree to the commission of the felony); State v. Hearn, 131 Wn. App. 601, 610-11, 128 P.3d 139 (2006) (finding that the Batten II criteria were not met for the crime of possession where drug paraphernalia was found in the appellant's belongings inside the vehicle, but the vehicle itself was not used to store or conceal the contraband). Ά15 The State argues that, because it is a necessary element of second degree malicious mischief that the offender perpetrates that mischief on an emergency vehicle, a sufficient nexus between the vehicle and the commission of the crime exists to constitute a "use" within the meaning of the statute. We agree that a clear relationship existed here between the vehicle and the crime because B.E.K.'s perpetration of mischief on a patrol car is what elevated his crime to a second degree felony. Ά16 But a relationship in any form between the vehicle and the crime is not sufficient. The relevant test under RCW 46.20.285(4) is whether vehicle operation or use contributed in some reasonable degree to the commission of a felony. In other words, the vehicle must be an instrumentality of the crime, such that the offender uses it in some fashion to carry out the crime. Ά17 The cases applying RCW 46.20.285(4) are thus distinguishable from the current case because B.E.K. did not employ the patrol car in any manner to commit his act of mischief but simply made the patrol car the object of his crime. Although commission of his crime was related to the vehicle, that nexus was based, not on a manner of use but on a relationship as between an offender and his victim. Ά18 We also note that, even were another statutory interpretation of the term "use" permissible here, the rule of lenity demands that, as between two permissible interpretations, we construe the statute in B.E.K.'s favor and most strictly against the State. Gore, 101 Wn.2d at 485-86. Ά19 Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court's ruling and remand with instructions to vacate its order notifying the DOL of B.E.K.'s felony adjudication. BRIDGEWATER and PENOYAR, JJ., concur.