FILED
September 1, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 32563-6-111 ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) PERRY ANTHONY ZUVELA, )
)
Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, C.J. - Perry Anthony Zuvela appeals the superior court's order
revoking his Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). He argues the court
failed to exercise its discretion in ordering revocation. We conclude that the trial court
had a tenable basis for revocation and affirm.
FACTS
On February 20, 2009, Mr. Zuvela pleaded guilty to seven counts of third degree
child molestation and one count of attempted first degree child molestation for having
sexual contact with his three minor children. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 12. Mr. Zuvela
sought a SSOSA under RCW 9.94A.670, which allows a sentencing court to suspend the No. 32563-6-III State v. Zuvela
sentence of a first time sexual offender if the offender is shown to be amenable to
treatment. To determine Mr. Zuvela's amenability to treatment, Dr. Mark Cross
conducted a SSOSA psychosocial evaluation. He concluded that Mr. Zuvela was a
moderately low risk for sexual recidivism, but cautioned that his history of substance
abuse could increase his risk level.
The trial court judge had reservations about giving Mr. Zuvela a SSOSA based on
Mr. Zuvela's minimization of his crimes and failure to disclose certain facts until he took
a polygraph test. The judge also expressed concern about Mr. Zuvela's substance abuse,
stating, "the things that got yourself sideways in was directly related to your addiction.
You continued to make very poor choices to supply your habit ... you're going to have to
figure out a way to stay sober, Mr. Zuvela, and you haven't figured that out up to this
point in your life." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 56. She also warned him that the
SSOSA was an "all or nothing deal" and that it would not be sufficient to merely
complete sex offender treatment. RP at 56. Ultimately, she granted the SSOSA, stating,
"I think it will prove itself out very quickly." Id.
Based on numerous prior felonies, Mr. Zuvela's offender score was more than 9
points for each crime. CP at 26. The trial court sentenced him to 120 months of
confinement on the attempted first degree molestation conviction and 60 months on each
No. 32563-6-III State v. Zuvela
of the other counts, but suspended imposition of this sentence under the SSOSA. His
sentence conditions included that he "maintain law abiding behavior and commit no new
crimes," and "not unlawfully possess or consume any controlled substances except
pursuant to a lawfully issued prescription." CP at 28.
On January 21,2010, the State filed a petition to revoke the SSOSA, alleging Mr.
Zuvela had failed to maintain law abiding behavior by shoplifting and carrying an illegal
switchblade knife. CP at 41. Mr. Zuvela stipulated to the violations at the hearing. Dr.
Cross, who was now Mr. Zuvela's treatment provider, sent a letter to Mr. Zuvela's
community corrections officer, Gerry Mungia, recommending revocation of the SSOSA:
Mr. Zuvela has a lengthy history of antisocial, criminal behavior and he appears unwilling to change the behavior pattern. Mr. Zuvela is presenting increased risk to the community. He is not considered to be safe in the community, is not amenable to sexual offender treatment. Mr. Zuvela's SSOSA treatment is terminated and ... a revocation ... is recommended.
RP at 90.
The court gave Mr. Zuvela another chance, but warned him that this was the last
chance.
In August 2013, the State filed another revocation petition based on Mr. Zuvela's
alleged use of methamphetamine. The petition was amended on September 4,2013, to
include two more violations regarding methamphetamine use. Mr. Zuvela again
I No. 32563-6-111 State v. Zuvela
stipulated to the violations. The court allowed him to stay on the SSOSA and ordered
him to complete inpatient treatment.
The State filed a third revocation petition on December 5,2014, based on Mr.
Zuvela's failure to report a change of address, attend treatment, and maintain law-abiding
behavior. CP at 71. At the March 7, 2014 hearing, Mr. Mungia recommended revocation
based on Mr. Zuvela's drug use and failure to attend sex offender treatment. Dr. Cross
testified that Mr. Zuvela was no longer amenable to treatment based on his continued
drug use and avoidance of participation. Dr. Cross explained that drug use, particularly
methamphetamine use, "causes people to become more hypersexual, more sexually
preoccupied, more likely to involve in compulsive behaviors, doing things repeatedly
despite whatever else is going on." RP at 160.
The trial court found that Mr. Zuvela committed the violations, but deferred a
decision until May 9 to give Mr. Zuvela the opportunity to participate in intensive
outpatient sex offender treatment. The court released him from custody with the warning:
"[t]he bottom line is this; ... if you screw up between now and 9th of May, if you get a
dirty VA, if you miss a treatment session, ... if you screw up in any regard, okay,
regardless of how minor or-I'm going to revoke your SSOSA." RP at 181.
No. 32563-6-II1 State v. Zuvela
On April 11, 2014, the State filed its fourth revocation petition, alleging that Mr.
Zuvela had recently used methamphetamine. CP at 74-75. At the hearing, Mr. Mungia
testified that Mr. Zuvela had a positive urinalysis and had admitted to using
methamphetamine. Mr. Mungia again recommended revocation ofthe SSOSA based on
Mr. Zuvela's continuing pattern of drug use. The trial court revoked the SSOSA,
observing:
We don't have sex crime related offenses. But we still have this kind of chronic abuse of controlled substances, which I think is really something that's driven Mr. Zuvela's life for his whole life . . . . I appreciate the request for one last-for one more chance. I think I succumbed to that request the last time this matter was before me.
RP at 198-99. ANALYSIS
Mr. Zuvela argues that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion and relied on
untenable grounds in revoking his SSOSA. We review a trial court's decision to revoke a
SSOSA for an abuse of discretion. State v. McCormick, 166 Wn.2d 689,705-06,213
P.3d 32 (2009). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is '''manifestly
unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'"
McCormick, 166 Wn.2d at 706 (quoting State ex. rei. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,26,
482 P.2d 775 (1971)).
RCW 9.94A.670(l1) provides that a court may revoke a SSOSA at any time during
the period of community custody if (1) the offender violates the conditions of the
suspended sentence, or (2) the court finds that the offender is failing to make satisfactory
progress in treatment. When a SSOSA sentence is revoked, the original sentence is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED
September 1, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 32563-6-111 ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) PERRY ANTHONY ZUVELA, )
)
Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, C.J. - Perry Anthony Zuvela appeals the superior court's order
revoking his Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). He argues the court
failed to exercise its discretion in ordering revocation. We conclude that the trial court
had a tenable basis for revocation and affirm.
FACTS
On February 20, 2009, Mr. Zuvela pleaded guilty to seven counts of third degree
child molestation and one count of attempted first degree child molestation for having
sexual contact with his three minor children. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 12. Mr. Zuvela
sought a SSOSA under RCW 9.94A.670, which allows a sentencing court to suspend the No. 32563-6-III State v. Zuvela
sentence of a first time sexual offender if the offender is shown to be amenable to
treatment. To determine Mr. Zuvela's amenability to treatment, Dr. Mark Cross
conducted a SSOSA psychosocial evaluation. He concluded that Mr. Zuvela was a
moderately low risk for sexual recidivism, but cautioned that his history of substance
abuse could increase his risk level.
The trial court judge had reservations about giving Mr. Zuvela a SSOSA based on
Mr. Zuvela's minimization of his crimes and failure to disclose certain facts until he took
a polygraph test. The judge also expressed concern about Mr. Zuvela's substance abuse,
stating, "the things that got yourself sideways in was directly related to your addiction.
You continued to make very poor choices to supply your habit ... you're going to have to
figure out a way to stay sober, Mr. Zuvela, and you haven't figured that out up to this
point in your life." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 56. She also warned him that the
SSOSA was an "all or nothing deal" and that it would not be sufficient to merely
complete sex offender treatment. RP at 56. Ultimately, she granted the SSOSA, stating,
"I think it will prove itself out very quickly." Id.
Based on numerous prior felonies, Mr. Zuvela's offender score was more than 9
points for each crime. CP at 26. The trial court sentenced him to 120 months of
confinement on the attempted first degree molestation conviction and 60 months on each
No. 32563-6-III State v. Zuvela
of the other counts, but suspended imposition of this sentence under the SSOSA. His
sentence conditions included that he "maintain law abiding behavior and commit no new
crimes," and "not unlawfully possess or consume any controlled substances except
pursuant to a lawfully issued prescription." CP at 28.
On January 21,2010, the State filed a petition to revoke the SSOSA, alleging Mr.
Zuvela had failed to maintain law abiding behavior by shoplifting and carrying an illegal
switchblade knife. CP at 41. Mr. Zuvela stipulated to the violations at the hearing. Dr.
Cross, who was now Mr. Zuvela's treatment provider, sent a letter to Mr. Zuvela's
community corrections officer, Gerry Mungia, recommending revocation of the SSOSA:
Mr. Zuvela has a lengthy history of antisocial, criminal behavior and he appears unwilling to change the behavior pattern. Mr. Zuvela is presenting increased risk to the community. He is not considered to be safe in the community, is not amenable to sexual offender treatment. Mr. Zuvela's SSOSA treatment is terminated and ... a revocation ... is recommended.
RP at 90.
The court gave Mr. Zuvela another chance, but warned him that this was the last
chance.
In August 2013, the State filed another revocation petition based on Mr. Zuvela's
alleged use of methamphetamine. The petition was amended on September 4,2013, to
include two more violations regarding methamphetamine use. Mr. Zuvela again
I No. 32563-6-111 State v. Zuvela
stipulated to the violations. The court allowed him to stay on the SSOSA and ordered
him to complete inpatient treatment.
The State filed a third revocation petition on December 5,2014, based on Mr.
Zuvela's failure to report a change of address, attend treatment, and maintain law-abiding
behavior. CP at 71. At the March 7, 2014 hearing, Mr. Mungia recommended revocation
based on Mr. Zuvela's drug use and failure to attend sex offender treatment. Dr. Cross
testified that Mr. Zuvela was no longer amenable to treatment based on his continued
drug use and avoidance of participation. Dr. Cross explained that drug use, particularly
methamphetamine use, "causes people to become more hypersexual, more sexually
preoccupied, more likely to involve in compulsive behaviors, doing things repeatedly
despite whatever else is going on." RP at 160.
The trial court found that Mr. Zuvela committed the violations, but deferred a
decision until May 9 to give Mr. Zuvela the opportunity to participate in intensive
outpatient sex offender treatment. The court released him from custody with the warning:
"[t]he bottom line is this; ... if you screw up between now and 9th of May, if you get a
dirty VA, if you miss a treatment session, ... if you screw up in any regard, okay,
regardless of how minor or-I'm going to revoke your SSOSA." RP at 181.
No. 32563-6-II1 State v. Zuvela
On April 11, 2014, the State filed its fourth revocation petition, alleging that Mr.
Zuvela had recently used methamphetamine. CP at 74-75. At the hearing, Mr. Mungia
testified that Mr. Zuvela had a positive urinalysis and had admitted to using
methamphetamine. Mr. Mungia again recommended revocation ofthe SSOSA based on
Mr. Zuvela's continuing pattern of drug use. The trial court revoked the SSOSA,
observing:
We don't have sex crime related offenses. But we still have this kind of chronic abuse of controlled substances, which I think is really something that's driven Mr. Zuvela's life for his whole life . . . . I appreciate the request for one last-for one more chance. I think I succumbed to that request the last time this matter was before me.
RP at 198-99. ANALYSIS
Mr. Zuvela argues that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion and relied on
untenable grounds in revoking his SSOSA. We review a trial court's decision to revoke a
SSOSA for an abuse of discretion. State v. McCormick, 166 Wn.2d 689,705-06,213
P.3d 32 (2009). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is '''manifestly
unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'"
McCormick, 166 Wn.2d at 706 (quoting State ex. rei. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12,26,
482 P.2d 775 (1971)).
RCW 9.94A.670(l1) provides that a court may revoke a SSOSA at any time during
the period of community custody if (1) the offender violates the conditions of the
suspended sentence, or (2) the court finds that the offender is failing to make satisfactory
progress in treatment. When a SSOSA sentence is revoked, the original sentence is
reinstated. State v. Miller, 159 Wn. App. 911, 918, 247 P.3d 457 (2011).
Mr. Zuvela contends the court's statement at the third revocation hearing that "if
you screw up, May 9th you're going to prison" constitutes an improper categorical
prejudging of any future violation. See RP at 181. He argues that by stating it intended to
revoke for any violation, no matter how minor, the court effectively failed to exercise any
discretion at all. He also argues that the court's decision to revoke the SSOSA was
manifestly unreasonable because Mr. Zuvela was not committing violations of a sexual
nature.
Mr. Zuvela's arguments are not persuasive. As the State points out, the trial
court's exercise of discretion is adequately demonstrated by the numerous second chances
it afforded Mr. Zuvela. At the first revocation hearing, the court cautiously maintained
Mr. Zuvela's SSOSA over the objection of Dr. Cross and Mr. Mungia, stating, "I'm even
questioning my own sanity at this particular point, because Mr. Zuvela, if! were a betting
person and I was looking at your record and knowing your history as I do, I don't think
1 1 No. 32563-6-111
State v. Zuvela
I'd be putting a lot of money on the bet right now." RP at 109. The court continued to
deny the State's motions to revoke the SSOSA, opting to work with Mr. Zuvela. Finally,
at the third revocation hearing, after Dr. Cross advised the court that Mr. Zuvela's
continued drug use impeded his sex offender treatment, the court advised Mr. Zuvela that
this was his last chance and gave him another month to participate in treatment.
In view of this record, we find no abuse of discretion. By the time the trial court
revoked Mr. Zuvela's SSOSA, he had been given three chances to comply with the
conditions of his sentence. If Mr. Zuvela's last violation had been unforeseeably
innocuous and the court refused to take that into consideration, Mr. Zuvela might have a
point. But the final violation was the type of violation that the court foresaw, and that it
warned Mr. Zuvela would result in revocation. And at the final hearing, the court listened
to arguments from the State and the defense, as well as Mr. Zuvela individually. The
court could have exercised discretion and terminated the SSOSA at the first revocation
hearing, the second, or the third. The fact that it had exercised its discretion to reach a
conclusion by the time of the third revocation hearing that it adhered to at the fourth does
not demonstrate a failure to exercise discretion, it reflects the patient exercise of
discretion and a forthright warning to Mr. Zuvela of the court's intention if there was a
future violation.
No. 32563-6-111 State v. Zuvela
Nevertheless, Mr. Zuvela maintains that the court abused its discretion because his
violations did not involve any victims and were not sexual in nature. He compares the
facts of his case to other cases in support of his argument that the revocation was
unreasonable because "the public safety concerns ... are incomparable [to the other
cases]." Appellant's Br. at 15. However, this is not the standard for assessing whether a
decision is manifestly unreasonable. We look for any tenable basis in the record to
support the decision.
Here, the trial court did not categorically refuse to consider a sentence or refuse to
exercise its discretion. Despite Mr. Zuvela's chronic drug use and repeated violations of
his sentence conditions, the court continued to give him chances. Despite these chances,
Mr. Zuvela continued to use methamphetamine, which seriously compromised his
treatment. Dr. Cross explained how Mr. Zuvela's chronic drug abuse affected his sex
offender treatment:
If somebody is not participating or not there, they are obviously not getting the benefit of being involved in treatment, being able to address those issues, things of that sort. And when somebody is using substances, they are not using their rational thinking and good decision-making, and placing them at higher risk.
RP at 168.
I f No. 32563-6-111 State v. Zuve fa
On these facts, the court's ultimate decision to revoke the SSOSA was not an
abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
L.. _,"-.. . l. .. - ~v.r..<.11 Lawrence-Berrey, J.