The State argued that the lack of a signed specific direction and failure to appear meant Heather had fled the jurisdiction, citing to criminal fugitive disentitlement doctrine cases for that argument. Id. at 3 (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Sayward, 76 Wash. App. 200, 202, 884 P.2d 613 (1994); State v. Rosales-Gonzales, 59 Wash. App. 583, 585-86, 799 P.2d 756 (1990)). That doctrine allows courts in certain limited circumstances to "dismiss[ ] appeals where the criminal appellant fled the jurisdiction, escaped from jail, or violated the conditions of release pending appeal."

The State argued that the lack of a signed specific direction and failure to appear meant Heather had fled the jurisdiction, citing to criminal fugitive disentitlement doctrine cases for that argument. Id. at 3 (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Sayward, 76 Wn. App. 200, 202, 884 P.2d 613 (1994); State v. Rosales-Gonzales, 59 Wn. App. 583, 585-86, 799 P.2d 756 (1990)). That doctrine allows courts in certain limited circumstances to "dismiss [ ] appeals where the criminal appellant fled the jurisdiction, escaped from jail, or violated the conditions of release pending appeal."