State v. Mieles

Summary

The court held that the defendant adequately presented his challenge to the legal standard governing a postsentencing standing criminal protective order. It construed the governing statute and legislative history to require findings that the defendant committed a qualifying offense, that the defendant's criminal history and conduct indicate that the order would best serve the victim and public, and that additional evidence not presented at sentencing supports that conclusion. Because the trial court made none of the required findings and relied only on the prosecutor's representations, the court reversed and directed that the protective order be vacated.