State Of Washington v. Glenn Allen Northrop ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 67925-2-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
v.
r*o o
UNPUBLISHED OPINION c=> •^>o
***—
Hr
GLENN ALLEN NORTHROP,
3E
^ o°
Appellant. FILED: May 20, 2013
CD
•L •*• ~i'11
—*-f,-
y^t
-~2r'-'•'•
—'•„ ;• — ", ''
Per Curiam— Glenn Northrop appeals the revocation of his Special Sexual
9?
en r,s
Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). He also appeals details of his judgment and
sentence. We affirm the revocation but remand for resentencing.
In order to obtain a SSOSA, Glenn Northrop pleaded guilty to attempted second
degree rape ofa child, patronizing a juvenile prostitute, and possessing depictions of
minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 1-2. The
sentencing court imposed a minimum term of 131 months and suspended all but six
months on the condition that Northrop complete sex offender treatment and abide by
community custody conditions for life. CP 37, 39. Northrop completed sex offender
therapy in September 2007.
In June 2009, the Department of Corrections (DOC) noted with concern that
Northrop was using the internet to advertise his services as a photographer, including
photographs of nude women. CP 218. The court ordered Northrop to remove from his
website "any photographs of humans or solicitations to take nude photographs of
No. 67925-2-1/2
women and shall use his legal name on any website he is involved in." CP 219-221. In
August 2009, the DOC alleged two violations of this order because Northrop had failed
to remove all the photos and had not adequately identified himself on the websites. CP
223. Although the court found no violation, it directed Northrop to remove all images
and solicitations for nude photography and undergo an evaluation by his former sex
offender therapist. CP 227-8, 237, 248-9.
In June 2011, the prosecutor moved to revoke Northrop's SSOSA, based on his
1)failure to comply with the August 2009 order by posting photographs of nude women,
2) failure to comply with the judgment and sentence by possessing pornography, and 3)
failure to comply with the judgment and sentence requiring Community Corrections
Officer (CCO) approved employment. CP 85. The court revoked Northrop's SSOSA
based on violations of the employment condition and his posting of nude photographs
on the internet in June 2011. CP 95-96. The revocation order imposed the 131-month
minimum sentence originally entered. CP 96. Northrop now appeals the SSOSA
revocation as well as his sentence and a community custody condition relating to
possession of pornography.
I. Revocation of SSOSA
In revoking Northrop's SSOSA, the trial court stated that"either one ofthe two
violations found justifies the revocation of the suspended sentence." CP 96, Verbatim
Report ofProceedings (VRP) (Oct. 7, 2011) at 30. Northrop challenges one ofthe
violations, but not the other. Accordingly, we need not decide whether his challenge
has merit because even assuming it does, the revocation is still supported by the other
unchallenged violation. Northrup's challenge to the SSOSA revocation fails.
No. 67925-2-1/3
II. Sentence
The court sentenced Northrop to a minimum of 131 months based on a standard
range of 111 to 147 months. Northrop contends, and the State concedes, that the court
erroneously sentenced him based on the completed crime of rape of a child in the
second degree, rather than the attempted offense to which he pleaded guilty. We
accept the concession. The standard range for attempt is 75 percent of the range for
the completed crime. RCW 9.94A.533(2). Given this, the court should have sentenced
Northrop based on a standard range of 83.25-110.25 months. We remand for
resentencing based on the corrected standard range.
III. Community Custody Prohibition on Possession of Pornography
The court imposed the following community custody condition: "Do not possess
or peruse pornographic materials unless given prior approval by your sexual deviancy
treatment specialist and/or Community Corrections Officer. Pornographic materials are
to be defined by the therapist and/or Community Corrections Officer." CP 39. Northrop
contends — and the State concedes — that this prohibition is unconstitutionally vague
under State v. Bahl. 164Wn.2d739, 193 P.3d 678 (2008) and State v. Sansone. 127
Wn. App. 630, 111 P.3d 1251 (2005). We accept the concession and remand for entry
of a community custody condition that provides the necessary specificity. Sansone, 127
Wn. App. at 643.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
For the court: yJp^A^QQ^ rp(