State Of Washington, V Christopher Eugene Thompson ( 2014 )

P IL ..I:
C# T OF APPEALS'
DIVISION II
2D14, DEC
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE :S.TATE OF WASHI
By
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 45929 -9 -II
Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER E. THOMPSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
WoRSwICK, P. J. — Christopher Thompson appeals his sentence for unlawful possession
1
of methamphetamine, arguing that the sentencing court erred by imposing a community custody
condition that prohibits Thompson from entering places whose primary business is the sale of
liquor. The State concedes this error. Because entering places whose primary business is the
sale of liquor does not relate to the circumstances of Thompson' s offense, we agree with
Thompson and accept the State' s concession and remand for the trial court to vacate the
community custody condition prohibiting Thompson from entering places whose primary
business is the sale of liquor.
FACTS
A jury found Thompson guilty of possession of methamphetamine for possessing a bag
of methamphetamine at a courthouse in May 2013. Nothing in the record suggests that alcohol
was involved in the offense. At sentencing, the trial court found that Thompson had a chemical
1
RCW 69. 50. 4013.
No. 45929 -9 -II
dependency that contributed to the offense, but did not find that entering bars, taverns, or places
whose primary business is the sale of liquor related to the offense.
The trial court sentenced Thompson to 16 months in jail, followed by 12 months of
community custody. As a condition of his community custody, Thompson was required not to
go into bars, taverns, lounges, or other places whose primary business is the sale of liquor."
Clerk' s Papers at 22. Thompson did not object to this condition at sentencing. Thompson
appeals, challenging only this community custody condition.
DISCUSSION
Thompson argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing a
community custody condition that prohibits him from entering into places whose primary
business is the sale of liquor. We agree.
A defendant may challenge illegal or erroneous sentences for the first time on appeal.
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739, 744, 193 P.3d 678 ( 2008); State v. Jones, 118 Wash. App. 199, 204,
76 P.3d 258 ( 2003). We review de novo whether a trial court had statutory authority to impose
community custody conditions. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash. 2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 ( 2007).
RCW 9. 94A.701( 3)( c) requires a sentencing court to sentence an offender to community
custody when the offender is sentenced to jail for possession of a controlled substance. Under
the terms of community custody, a sentencing court has discretionary authority to impose crime -
related prohibitions. RCW 9. 94A.703( 3)( f);State v. Land, 172 Wash. App. 593, 605, 295 P.3d 782
2013), review denied, 177 Wash. 2d 1016 ( 2013). A "crime- related prohibition" is one that
involves " conduct that directly relates to the circumstance of the crime for which the offender
has been convicted." RCW 9. 94A. 030( 10).
No. 45929 -9 -II
A trial court has authority to prohibit alcohol consumption as a community custody
condition, regardless of the underlying offense' s nature. But it lacks authority to prohibit the
purchase and possession of alcohol unless alcohol is " reasonably related to the circumstances of
the defendant' s] alleged offenses." State v. McKee, 141 Wash. App. 22, 34, 167 P.3d 575 ( 2007).
Here, entering places whose primary business is the sale of liquor does not reasonably
relate to the circumstances of Thompson' s possession of methamphetamine. Thus, the trial court
erred by imposing the community custody condition that prohibits Thompson from entering
places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. McKee, 141 Wash. App. at 34.
We accept the State' s concession and remand for the trial court to vacate the community
custody condition prohibiting Thompson from entering places whose primary business is the sale
of liquor.
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:
Worswick, P.
J-
3