The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of David Isaac Maldonado for violating a domestic violence protection order. The court ruled on November 5, 2026, affirming the jury's decision that found Maldonado guilty of two felony counts related to his actions towards his former partner, Mollie Maldonado. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of violating protective orders designed to safeguard victims of domestic violence.

The case, numbered 40848-5, stems from incidents in February 2024, when David Maldonado was accused of breaching a court order that prohibited him from contacting Mollie and required him to stay at least 300 feet away from her. The court's decision impacts victims of domestic violence and highlights the importance of adhering to protective orders.

Background

The dispute involves David Maldonado and his former partner, Mollie Maldonado. In December 2023, the Stevens County District Court issued a domestic violence no contact order against David, which restricted him from contacting Mollie and mandated that he remain at least 300 feet away from her. The order was put in place after previous incidents of domestic violence.

On February 12, 2024, the situation escalated when David and his girlfriend parked in a Safeway parking lot in Chewelah, Washington. Mollie arrived shortly after and noticed David's vehicle parked only about 50 feet away from hers. Feeling intimidated, Mollie returned to her car and called the police. Officers arrived and arrested David after he made comments towards Mollie, further violating the no contact order.

The Ruling

The court ruled that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support David's conviction on both counts of felony violation of a domestic violence protection order. The judge noted, "Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find that David knowingly entered or remained within 300 feet of the area— 'any place'—where Mollie arrived first in violation of the order's distance restriction as charged in count 1."

Additionally, the court addressed David's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy. The court found no merit in these arguments, concluding that David's attorney had not performed deficiently and that the two counts represented separate violations of the protection order. The court stated, "These are separate and distinct criminal acts, and thus separate units of prosecution, even though they occurred on the same day and under the same statute."

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal framework surrounding domestic violence protection orders in Washington State. It emphasizes that individuals who violate such orders can face serious legal consequences, including felony charges. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of these protective measures for victims of domestic violence.

Moreover, the ruling clarifies the legal interpretation of what constitutes separate violations of a protection order. It establishes that actions taken in close temporal proximity can still be treated as distinct violations if they meet the criteria set forth in the law. This may influence future cases involving similar circumstances, ensuring that the legal system continues to protect victims effectively.

What's Next

David Maldonado has the option to appeal this decision to a higher court. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.