State Of Washington, V Christopher Eugene Thompson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: December 9, 2014
• Docket: 45929-9
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

P IL ..I: C# T OF APPEALS' DIVISION II

2D14, DEC IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE :S.TATE OF WASHI

By DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45929 -9 -II

Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER E. THOMPSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

WoRSwICK, P. J. — Christopher Thompson appeals his sentence for unlawful possession

1 of methamphetamine, arguing that the sentencing court erred by imposing a community custody

condition that prohibits Thompson from entering places whose primary business is the sale of

liquor. The State concedes this error. Because entering places whose primary business is the

sale of liquor does not relate to the circumstances of Thompson' s offense, we agree with

Thompson and accept the State' s concession and remand for the trial court to vacate the

community custody condition prohibiting Thompson from entering places whose primary

business is the sale of liquor.

FACTS

A jury found Thompson guilty of possession of methamphetamine for possessing a bag

of methamphetamine at a courthouse in May 2013. Nothing in the record suggests that alcohol

was involved in the offense. At sentencing, the trial court found that Thompson had a chemical

1 RCW 69. 50. 4013. No. 45929 -9 -II

dependency that contributed to the offense, but did not find that entering bars, taverns, or places

whose primary business is the sale of liquor related to the offense.

The trial court sentenced Thompson to 16 months in jail, followed by 12 months of

community custody. As a condition of his community custody, Thompson was required not to

go into bars, taverns, lounges, or other places whose primary business is the sale of liquor."

Clerk' s Papers at 22. Thompson did not object to this condition at sentencing. Thompson

appeals, challenging only this community custody condition.

DISCUSSION

Thompson argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing a

community custody condition that prohibits him from entering into places whose primary

business is the sale of liquor. We agree.

A defendant may challenge illegal or erroneous sentences for the first time on appeal. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 744, 193 P. 3d 678 ( 2008); State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 204,

76 P. 3d 258 ( 2003). We review de novo whether a trial court had statutory authority to impose

community custody conditions. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P. 3d 201 ( 2007).

RCW 9. 94A.701( 3)( c) requires a sentencing court to sentence an offender to community

custody when the offender is sentenced to jail for possession of a controlled substance. Under

the terms of community custody, a sentencing court has discretionary authority to impose crime -

related prohibitions. RCW 9. 94A.703( 3)( f);State v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593, 605, 295 P. 3d 782

2013), review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1016 ( 2013). A "crime- related prohibition" is one that

involves " conduct that directly relates to the circumstance of the crime for which the offender

has been convicted." RCW 9. 94A. 030( 10). No. 45929 -9 -II

A trial court has authority to prohibit alcohol consumption as a community custody

condition, regardless of the underlying offense' s nature. But it lacks authority to prohibit the

purchase and possession of alcohol unless alcohol is " reasonably related to the circumstances of

the defendant' s] alleged offenses." State v. McKee, 141 Wn. App. 22, 34, 167 P. 3d 575 ( 2007).

Here, entering places whose primary business is the sale of liquor does not reasonably

relate to the circumstances of Thompson' s possession of methamphetamine. Thus, the trial court

erred by imposing the community custody condition that prohibits Thompson from entering

places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. McKee, 141 Wn. App. at 34.

We accept the State' s concession and remand for the trial court to vacate the community

custody condition prohibiting Thompson from entering places whose primary business is the sale

of liquor.

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.

We concur: Worswick, P. J-