State Of Washington v. Ian D. Clark ( 2014 )

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IAN D. CLARK, UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Wash. 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:
3