State Of Washington v. Lucas Hargraves ( 2014 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION Iz
20 R' t APP - 8 AM 8: 54
STATE OF WASHINGTON
y.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45118 -2 -II
Respondent,
v.
LUCAS A. HARGRAVES, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
JOHANSON, A.C. J. — Lucas Hargraves appeals his conviction for second degree robbery.
He also appeals the community custody provision prohibiting him from entering places whose
primary business is the sale of liquor. We affirm his conviction but remand -
for the trial court to
strike the community custody provision.'
FACTS
On March 21, 2013, Hargraves entered a Red Apple grocery store. Jason Gray, a Red
Apple employee, observed Hargraves acting suspiciously. Gray observed Hargraves place a can
of beer in his pocket. Hargraves did not pay for the beer, and Gray attempted to stop Hargraves
as he exited the store. When Gray attempted to stop Hargraves, Hargraves came straight at him.
1
A commissioner of this court initially considered this appeal as a motion on the merits under
RAP 18. 14 and then referred it to a panel of judges.
No. 45118 -2 -II
Gray grabbed Hargraves' s collar and they spun around. Then Hargraves threw a punch at Gray.
A customer intervened, and Gray was able to detain Hargraves in the store until police arrived.
The State charged Hargraves with second degree robbery and unlawful display of a
weapon by amended information on June 25, 2013. The amended information read,
In the County of Mason, State of Washington, on or about the 21st day of
March, 2013, the named
above - Defendant, LUCAS A. HARGRAVES, did
commit ROBBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, a Class B felony, in that said
defendant, with intent to commit theft thereof, did unlawfully take personal
from the wit: Jason
property that the Defendant did not own person of another, to -
Gray, or in said person' s presence against said person' s will by the use or
threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to said person or the
property of said person or the person or property of another; contrary to RCW
9A.56. 210( 1) and RCW 9A.56. 190 and against the peace and dignity of the State
of Washington.
Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 101 -02. At Hargraves' s jury trial, Gray testified to the above facts. A
jury found Hargraves guilty of second degree robbery.
The trial court sentenced Hargraves to a standard range sentence followed by 12 months
of community custody. The trial court imposed community custody provisions, including
prohibiting Hargraves from entering " bars, taverns, lounges, or other places whose primary
business is the sale of liquor" ( liquor establishments). CP at 13. Hargraves appeals.
ANALYSIS
Hargraves argues that the amended information charging him with second degree robbery
We disagree Hargraves' Hargraves also
was constitutionally defective. and affirm s conviction.
argues that the trial court exceeded its statutory sentencing authority by imposing the community
custody provision prohibiting Hargraves from entering liquor establishments without a finding
that Hargraves' s crime was related to entering liquor establishments. The State concedes that the
2
The charge of unlawful display of a weapon was dismissed by the trial court.
2
No. 45118 -2 -II
trial court exceeded its statutory sentencing authority. We accept the State' s concession and
remand to the trial court to strike the community custody provision prohibiting Hargraves from
entering liquor establishments.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION
A charging document must include all essential elements of a crime to inform a defendant
of the charges against him and to allow preparation for the defense. State v. Phillips, 98 Wn.
App. 936, 939, 991 P.2d 1195 ( 2000) ( citing State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d 93, 101 -02, 812 P.2d
86 ( 1991)). We review a challenge to the sufficiency of a charging document de novo. State v.
Williams, 162 Wash. 2d 177, 182, 170 P.3d 30 ( 2007). When a defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal, we construe the charging
document liberally in favor of validity. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 102. The test to determine the
sufficiency of a charging document is ( 1) whether the essential elements appear in any form or
can be found by any fair construction in the information; and ( 2) if so, whether the defendant
nonetheless was actually prejudiced by the inartful language used. Kjorsvik, 117 Wash. 2d at 105-
06.
Hargraves argues that the charging document was defective because it failed to include
force force to the property. The
language informing him that the or threat of was used retain
State argues that the information was not defective because Hargraves had not yet completed the
taking, therefore the use of force was used to obtain the property. The State is correct. Because
a robbery is not complete until the defendant has escaped, Hargraves used force to obtain the
property and the information was sufficient.
Under the " transactional" analysis of robbery, the taking of property is " ongoing until the
assailant has effected an escape." State v. Truong, 168 Wash. App. 529, 536, 277 P.3d 74, review
3
No. 45118 -2 -II
denied, 175 Wash. 2d 1020 ( 2012). As Hargraves was leaving the store with the beer, Gray stopped
him. At this point, Hargraves used force to keep from being detained by Gray. Because
Hargraves had not effectuated escape from the store, the taking was still ongoing at the time he
used force against Gray. Therefore, the information properly charged him with robbery by using
force or the threat of force to unlawfully take property.
COMMUNITY CUSTODY PROVISION
Hargraves also argues that the trial court erred by including a community custody
provision prohibiting him from entering liquor .establishments without a finding that alcohol
contributed to the crime. The State concedes that the trial court exceeded its sentencing authority
by imposing a community custody provision prohibiting Hargraves from entering liquor
establishments.
The trial court errs by imposing a community custody provision that exceeds its statutory
authority. State v. Barnett, 139 Wash. 2d 462, 464, 987 P.2d 626 ( 1999). RCW 9..94A.030( 10)
authorizes the trial court to impose crime -
related community custody provisions when the
conduct prohibited by the condition directly relates to the crime for which the defendant was
convicted. See also RCW 9. 94A.703( 3)( f). But the trial court did not find that entering liquor
establishments was directly related to the robbery. Further, there are no facts in the record which
support a finding that entering liquor establishments was directly related to the robbery.
Therefore, the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing the community custody
4
No. 45118 -2 -II
provision. We accept the State' s concession and remand to the trial court to strike the improper
community custody provision.
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:
5