IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON ,

Respondent ,

v. ANDREW LEANDRE SANDERS ,

Appellant

. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36975

- 7

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

F EARING , J.

— Andrew Sanders request s t hat the court narrow a community custody condition concerning sexual contact with others. We grant his request.
FACTS
A n undercover police officer responded to Andrew Sanders’ advertisement on Craigslist, titled “ ‘ meet on Rd 68 (Late tonight)

— m4m. ’ ” Cler k’s Papers ( CP ) at 19. The officer, purporting to be a 13

- year
- old boy, e

- mailed Sanders and revealed his age. Sanders did not address the fictitious boy’s age, but replied that he was “ ‘ pretty damn horny ’ ” and requested a “ ‘ cock pic. ’ ” CP at 19. Sande rs sought to meet the 13

- year
- old
and offered to give the boy a “ ‘ blowjob. ’ ” CP at 19. F ILED FEBRUARY 2 , 20 2 1 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division IIINo. 36975

- 7

- III

State v. Sanders

2 Andrew Sanders and the undercover officer arranged a meeting at a residence . On entering the premises, the officer arrested Sanders

. PROCEDURE
The State of Washin gton charged Andrew Sanders with attempted rape of a child in the second degree and attempted communication with a minor for immoral purposes. Sanders pled guilty to attempted rape of a child in the second degree. The State then
dismissed the charge of a ttempted communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
T he trial court sentenced Andrew Sanders to a range of 58.5 months to life and community custody for life. The trial court also imposed community custody conditions,
which included :

Inform the s upervising CCO [c ommunity c orrections o fficer] and sexual deviancy treatment provider of any dating relationship. Disclose sex offender status prior to any sexual contact. Sexual contact in a relationship is prohibited until the treatment provider approv es of such.
CP at 49.
LAW AND ANALYSIS Andrew Sanders assigns only one error on appeal. Sanders contends that the community custody condition requiring him to obtain prior approval from a sexual deviancy treatment provider before engaging in sexual co ntact infringes on his fundamental right to marry. Sanders requests that this court remand to the trial court to redraft the condition so it does not apply to his wife. The State agrees that theNo. 36975

- 7

- III

State v. Sanders

3 community custody condition should be amended to allow Sand ers sexual contact with his spouse without approval from a treatment provider . We accept the State’s
concession. This court reviews community custody conditions for abuse of discretion and will

reverse conditions only if manifestly unreasonable. State v. Irwin , 191 Wn. App. 644, 652, 364 P.3d 830 (2015). We uphold such conditions if reasonably crime related, but, we carefully review sentencing conditions that interfere with a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Warren , 165 Wn.2d 17, 32, 195 P.3 d 940 (2008). The right to marry and to maintain a marriage relationship is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Warren , 165 Wn.2d at 46. Conditions that interfere with fundamental rights must be reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the State and public order and be sensitively imposed. State v. Warren , 165 Wn.2d at 32 (2008). Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) , ch. 9.94A RCW, a court may require compliance “with any crime

- related prohibitions” as a condit ion of community custody. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f); RCW 9.94A.505(9).

“ Crime

- related prohibitions ” means an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.
RCW 9.94A.0 30(10). A community custody condition requiring a defendant to seek prior approval from a treatment provider before engaging in sexual contact reasonably
relates to sex crimes against children. State v. Autrey , 136 Wn. App. 460, 468, 150 P.3dNo. 36975

- 7

- III

State v. Sanders

4 580 (2006). An offender ’s f reedom of choosing even adult sexual partners reasonably
correlates to his or her crimes because potential romantic partners may supervise minors. State v. Autrey , 136 Wn. App. at 468.
Andrew Sanders asserts that the challenged communit y custody condition is too
broad and should be tailored to allow him to have sexual contact with his wife without needing to obtain prior approval from a treatment provider. Sanders does not otherwise disagree with the condition. The State argues that th e condition addresses the danger a
sex offender may pose to an adult unaware of the offender’s history of abusing children.
The State agrees, however, that this concern does not relate to Sanders’ marital relationship. Sanders’ spouse knows about his sex ual assault conviction and remains in her relationship with him. Based on the concession of the State, the sentencing court should modify the community custody condition to read:

Inform the CCO and sexual deviancy treatment provider of any dating rela tionship. Disclose sex offender status prior to any sexual contact. Sexual contact in a relationship is prohibited until the treatment provider approves of such, except for consensual sexual contact and intercourse with the defendant’s spouse

. CONCLUSIO N We grant Andrew Sanders’ request. We remand for the sentencing court to modify the community custody condition consistent with this opinion.No. 36975

- 7

- III

State v. Sanders

5 A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.

_________________________________ Fearing , J.
WE CONCUR:

______________________________ Korsmo, J. P.T. 1

______________________________ Pennell , C. J.

1 Judge Kevin M. Korsmo was a member of the Court of Appeals at the time argument was held on this matter. He is now serving as a judge pro tempore of the court pursuant to RCW 2.06.150.