Opinion ID: 2597756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of the suspended sentence?

Text: ¶ 30 McCormick argues the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of his suspended sentence. He essentially couches the argument as the facts do not demonstrate he knew the food bank was where minors congregate. ¶ 31 A SSOSA sentence may be revoked at any time if there is sufficient proof to reasonably satisfy the court that the offender has violated a condition of the suspended sentence or failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment. State v. Badger, 64 Wash.App. 904, 908, 827 P.2d 318 (1992) (citing State v. Kuhn, 81 Wash.2d 648, 650, 503 P.2d 1061 (1972)). Revocation of a suspended sentence due to violations rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision of the court is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wash.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971); see State v. Hays, 55 Wash. App. 13, 16, 776 P.2d 718 (1989). ¶ 32 Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the suspended sentence. At the hearing, the State presented evidence that the CCO told McCormick he could not frequent churches or schools. McCormick was previously sanctioned for violating the condition that he not frequent areas where children are known to congregate when he went to the high school across the street from the food bank. ¶ 33 The evidence demonstrates McCormick went to a food bank located in an elementary school that is connected with a church. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the location of the food bank in a building housing a church school presented a risk to the safety or welfare of society. This violation, combined with McCormick's prior violations for visiting a church, high school, and a park on three separate occasions, justify revoking McCormick's suspended sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking McCormick's suspended sentence.