Full Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two November 10, 2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 61698-0-II Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION DOUGLAS ALAN LEBLANC, Appellant. CHE, J. — Douglas LeBlanc appeals his conviction for violation of a no contact order— domestic violence. At trial, the State admitted as an exhibit a certified copy of a no contact order prohibiting LeBlanc from contacting Brandy Bingham. The order found that LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners. LeBlanc argues that the State provided insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he was intimate partners with Bingham as required to support the domestic violence finding.1 We disagree and affirm. FACTS On May 7, 2021, law enforcement pulled over LeBlanc for driving with an obstructed license plate and expired tabs. The officer noticed a woman lying on the back floorboard of the 1 In a statement of additional grounds for review, LeBlanc attaches two municipal court documents filed after his conviction in the matter at issue in this appeal. LeBlanc provides no context for these documents and makes no argument as to how they may entitle him to relief. Although RAP 10.10 does not require an appellant to refer to the record or cite authority, he is required to inform us of the nature and occurrence of the alleged errors. LeBlanc fails to do so, and we do not address his statement of additional grounds for review further. RAP 10.10. No. 61698-0-II vehicle. After LeBlanc identified himself, the officer discovered that LeBlanc was named in two domestic violence protection orders. The woman in LeBlanc’s car identified herself as Brandy Bingham. Brandy Bingham was listed as the protected party in one of the no contact orders. Both Bingham and LeBlanc acknowledged being aware of the no contact order. The State charged LeBlanc with violation of a no contact order—domestic violence. The arresting officer testified at trial consistent with the facts above. The trial court admitted as an exhibit a domestic violence no contact order filed in Spokane Municipal Court on August 3, 2020. The order prohibited LeBlanc from contacting Bingham and expired on August 3, 2099. The order included a finding of fact that LeBlanc and Bingham were “[i]ntimate partner[s] (former/current spouse; former/current domestic partner; parent of a child in common; or former/current cohabitant as part of a dating relationship).” Ex. 1. LeBlanc stipulated that he had twice been previously convicted of violating the provisions of a court order. The jury found LeBlanc guilty of violation of a court order and found that LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners such that the offense was domestic violence. LeBlanc appeals. ANALYSIS LeBlanc argues that the State provided insufficient evidence to prove that he and Bingham were intimate partners, as was necessary to prove that the offense was domestic violence. We disagree. “‘The State must prove every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to be upheld.’” State v. Sibert, 168 Wn.2d 306, 311, 230 P.3d 142 (2010) (quoting State v. Byrd, 125 Wn.2d 707, 713, 887 P.2d 396 (1995)). In a sufficiency of the evidence 2 No. 61698-0-II challenge, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of violating the no-contact order beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d 243, 265, 401 P.3d 19 (2017). Insufficient evidence claims admit the truth of the State’s evidence. Id. at 265-66. We resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the State and interpret inferences most strongly against the defendant. State v. Gouley, 19 Wn. App. 2d 185, 194, 494 P.3d 458 (2021). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally reliable. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 266. And we defer to the fact finder’s resolution of conflicting testimony and evaluation of the evidence’s persuasiveness. State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102, 106, 330 P.3d 182 (2014). To prove LeBlanc guilty of felony violation of a court order, the State had to prove that there was a no contact order applicable to LeBlanc, LeBlanc knew of the existence of the order, LeBlanc knowingly violated a provision of the order, LeBlanc had twice been previously convicted for violating the provisions of a court order, and LeBlanc’s actions occurred in Washington. Former RCW 26.50.110 (2020). Additionally, to prove that the violation was a crime of domestic violence, the State also had to prove that LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners. Former RCW 10.99.020 (2020). Intimate partners included, among others, former or current spouses or domestic partners; persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time; and adult persons presently or previously residing together who have or have had a dating relationship. Former RCW 26.50.010(7) (2020). To prove that LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners, the State provided a certified copy of the no contact order which found LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners. 3 No. 61698-0-II LeBlanc emphasizes that the no contact order finding that he was an intimate partner to Bingham was based on a lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, as required to support his criminal conviction. Regardless, the finding in the no contact order was circumstantial evidence that LeBlanc and Bingham were intimate partners, which the jury weighed as part of its duties. We treat circumstantial evidence the same as direct evidence and defer to the jury on issues of fact. Cardenas-Flores, 189 Wn.2d at 266; Homan, 181 Wn.2d at 106. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Bingham and LeBlanc were intimate partners and that LeBlanc was guilty of violating a no contact order. We affirm. 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 in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered. Che, J. We concur: Maxa, P.J. Glasgow, J. 4