2Q160CT-3 m 9^9
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
No. 73653-1-1
Respondent,
v. DIVISION ONE
JOHN MARVIN BILL, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: October 3, 2016
Appelwick, J. — Bill appeals the community custody portion of his
sentence for first degree child molestation. He challenges three conditions of
community custody, arguing that they are unauthorized or unconstitutionally
vague. We accept the State's concession that two conditions are vague and
must be stricken or clarified. We affirm in part and remand in part.
FACTS
Based on allegations that John Bill molested a young boy while swimming
with family members at a lake, the State charged him with first degree child
molestation. A jury convicted him as charged. The court sentenced Bill to 60
months to life in confinement and a lifetime term of community custody. The
community custody conditions included the following:
4. Do not initiate or prolong contact with minor children without
the presence of an adult who is knowledgeable of the offense
No. 73653-1-1/2
and has been approved by the supervising Community
Corrections Officer.
5. Do not seek employment or volunteer positions, which place
you in contact with or control over minor children.
6. Do not frequent areas where minor children are known to
congregate, as defined by the supervising Community
Corrections Officer.
11. Hold employment only in a position where you always receive
direct supervision.
19. Based on eligibility, enter and successfully complete identified
interventions to assist you to improve your skills, relationships,
and ability to stay crime free.
Bill appeals.
DISCUSSION
A community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to
provide ordinary people fair warning of proscribed conduct or allows for arbitrary
enforcement. State v. Irwin. 191 Wn. App. 644, 652-53, 364 P.3d 830 (2015).
Bill contends conditions 6 and 19 are unconstitutionally vague. The State
concedes that condition 6 is vague under our decision in Irwin. 191 Wn. App. at
652, 655 (striking condition stating, "Do not frequent areas where minor children
are known to congregate, as defined by the supervising [community corrections
officer]" as void for vagueness). We accept the State's concession and strike
condition 6 as unconstitutionally vague.
No. 73653-1-1/3
Condition 19, which requires Bill to "successfully complete identified
interventions," is also unconstitutionally vague. Bill correctly points out, and the
State concedes, that the court failed to identify either the "interventions" or the
person or entity who would identify them. As written, this condition is subject to
arbitrary enforcement and is unconstitutionally vague. See jcL at 654. We accept
the State's concession of error and strike condition 19.1
Bill also challenges condition 11, which requires him to "[h]old employment
only in a position where you always receive direct supervision." He claims this
condition is not authorized by statute and that no evidence links the condition to
the circumstances of his offense. We disagree.
A sentencing court has authority to impose crime-related prohibitions or
affirmative conditions as part of an offender's community custody. RCW
9.94A.505(9); .703(3) (c)-(d), (f); see also RCW 9.94A.607 (1). A "crime-related
prohibition" is one that "directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for
which the offender has been convicted." RCW 9.94A.030(10). Courts also have
authority to impose conditions that ensure compliance with other conditions of
community custody. See State v. Vant, 145 Wn. App. 592, 604, 186 P.3d 1149
(2008); State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 342-43, 351-52, 957 P.2d 655 (1988),
abrogated on other grounds by State v. Valencia. 169 Wn.2d 782, 239 P.3d 1059
(2010); RCW 9.94A.030(10) ("[Ajffirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance
1We express no opinion regarding the State's contention that conditions 6
and 19 could be redrafted to pass constitutional muster.
No. 73653-1-1/4
with the order of a court may be required by the department."). Community
custody conditions are within the court's discretion and will be reversed only if
manifestly unreasonable. Valencia. 169 Wn.2d at 791-92.
Here, the trial court imposed a number of conditions designed to prevent
Bill from having unsupervised contact with minors. Conditions 4 and 5, which are
unchallenged, prohibit Bill from initiating or prolonging contact with minor children
without the presence of an adult and from seeking employment that places him in
contact with minor children. Condition 11 ensures compliance with these
unchallenged conditions. It is therefore authorized by the authorities cited above.
It is also authorized by statute because it is crime related. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f).
Bill's offense occurred in public and in the presence of members of his extended
family. Because the molestation was not limited to private locations and
occurred in the presence of others, supervision at Bill's place of employment is
related to, and warranted by, the circumstances of his offense.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
WE CONCUR:
w^^^>J»
State Of Washington v. John Marvin Bill
Combined Opinion