The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld the felony convictions of David Isaac Maldonado for violating a domestic violence protection order. The court's decision, filed on November 5, 2026, impacts individuals involved in domestic violence cases and highlights the enforcement of protection orders.

The case stems from two incidents in February 2024, where Maldonado was found guilty of two counts of violating a protection order that prohibited him from contacting Mollie Maldonado and from being within 300 feet of her. The court's ruling affirms the importance of adhering to these orders designed to protect victims of domestic violence.

Background

David Isaac Maldonado was charged after a jury found him guilty of two counts of felony violation of a domestic violence protection order. The order, issued by the Stevens County District Court on December 5, 2023, restricted David from contacting Mollie Maldonado and required him to stay at least 300 feet away from her.

The incidents leading to the charges occurred on February 12, 2024, when Mollie arrived at a Safeway parking lot in Chewelah, Washington. David, who was already parked in the lot, moved his vehicle closer to Mollie after she arrived. This action violated the distance restriction of the protection order. During his arrest, David also made verbal comments directed at Mollie, violating the no contact provision of the order.

The case was brought to the Court of Appeals after David appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his conviction violated double jeopardy protections.

The Ruling

The court ruled against David on all three of his claims. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court stated, "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." This ruling reinforced the notion that even if David was present before Mollie, moving closer to her constituted a violation.

On the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that David's attorney's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court noted that the arrest was lawful, and therefore, any motion to suppress statements made by David post-arrest would have been unsuccessful.

Finally, the court addressed David's double jeopardy claim, asserting that the two counts represented separate violations of the protection order. The court explained, "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." The ruling clarified that David's actions constituted two distinct violations of the protection order.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals involved in domestic violence cases. It reaffirms the legal system's commitment to enforcing protection orders and ensuring compliance. The court's decision emphasizes that violations of such orders can result in serious legal consequences, including felony charges.

The ruling also serves as a reminder to those under protection orders about the importance of adhering to the terms set forth in these legal documents. Failure to comply can lead to severe repercussions, including arrest and conviction.

What's Next

David Maldonado's conviction can be appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. This case may also set a precedent for how similar violations are treated in the future.