State Of Washington v. Ian D. Clark

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: May 6, 2014
• Docket: 45263-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED COURT OF DIVISION II 2014 NY - 6 Al Y 3: 32 STATE OF WASf- MGTOl IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE ovF G_ ON T TPUT DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45263 -4 -II

Respondent,

v.

IAN D. CLARK, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

MAxA, J. — Ian D. Clark appeals the trial court' s order imposing a community custody

condition prohibiting Clark from frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor.

The State concedes that this condition should be stricken from Clark' s judgment and sentence.

We accept the State' s concession and we strike from Clark' s judgment and sentence the

community custody condition prohibiting him from frequenting places whose primary business

is the sale of liquor. We remand for correction of the judgment.

FACTS

Clark dropped a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue as he was walking away

from police officer Daniel Patton. Although Patton did not remember from where the pipe

dropped, a witness observed the pipe fall out of the left pocket of Clark' s jacket. Clark was

charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the

trial court imposed a condition of community custody that prohibited Clark from going into bars,

taverns, lounges, or other places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. Clark appeals. 45263 -4 -II

ANALYSIS

Clark appeals his sentence by challenging that the trial court acted without authority in

ordering him not to frequent places whose primary business is the sale of liquor, and the State

concedes. We conclude that the trial court did not have such authority and remand for

resentencing.

A sentencing court has discretionary authority to impose crime -related prohibitions under

the terms of community custody. RCW 9. 94A. 703( 3)( f). A crime - related prohibition is one that

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

has been convicted." RCW 9. 94A. 030( 10). We have recognized that a trial court has authority

to prohibit consumption of alcohol as a condition of community custody, regardless of the

offense. State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 206, 76 P. 3d 258 ( 2003). However, community

custody provisions prohibiting purchase and possession of alcohol are invalid where alcohol did

not contribute to the offense. State v. McKee, 141 Wn. App. 22, 34, 167 P. 3d 575 ( 2007).

Here, the trial court at sentencing found that Clark had a chemical dependency that

contributed to the offense. However, the trial court did not find that Clark suffered from alcohol

dependency or that frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor contributed to the offense. Therefore, the trial court lacked the statutory authority to impose the condition at

issue.

We accept the State' s concession, and order that the community custody condition

prohibiting Clark from frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor be stricken from Clark' s judgment and sentence. We remand for correction of the judgment.

2 45263 -4 -II

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: