Mr. Clary received a juvenile adjudication in 2004 for Child Molestation in the First Degree (“CM 1”). His second amendment right to possess firearms was revoked as a part of his juvenile disposition. Mr. Clary fulfilled his dispositional conditions, and a court subsequently granted his request to ‘seal’ his juvenile court file under RCW 13.50.260. RCW 13.50.260(6)(a) states that sealing has the legal effect that such an order results in “the proceedings in the case shall be treated as if they never occurred”.
Mr. Clary sought to restore his gun rights. He was denied at the trial court and Court of Appeals level, as RCW 9.41.041 indicates “a sealed juvenile conviction is a ‘disqualifying offense’”. One wonders just how a matter ‘never occurred’, yet can disqualify one from regaining a constitutional right.
The Division 1 court held Barr v. Snohomish County, 193 Wn. 2d 330, at 333 (2019) was controlling, stating “while the sealing orders makes…convictions invisible to most people, they still do exist”. Id 337 [Emphasis, the Courts]. The Court was “compelled” by Barr to hold Mr. Clary was out of luck because RCW 9.41.041(1) indicates Mr. Clary “remains a person who has been convicted of a Class A felony”.
This case is ripe for further review before the WA Supreme Court. The Division 1 court states “Mr. Clary’s…argument is not entirely without merit. As the dissenting opinion explains, Mr. Clary’s argument is “consistent with the plain language of RCW 13.50.260(6)(a) which unequivocally mandates that sealed juvenile case proceedings “shall be treated as if they never occurred””.
The referenced dissent (Judge Diaz) indicated that the majority’s holding is not consistent with the legislative intent for juvenile sealing.
I have a juvenile client who at this very moment who is seeking the sealing of his Rape of a Child adjudication. I will have to inform him that sealing his case will not – at least not at present – later allow him to restore his second amendment rights to firearms.