Court Opinion

ID: 9949784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:16:42.435955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:02.392353
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                        Washington State
                                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Division Two

                                                                                         March 12, 2024
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                         DIVISION II
 STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                               No. 57463-2-II

                               Respondent,

        v.
                                                                UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 ERICK MIGUEL ROSALES,

                               Appellant.

       MAXA, P.J. – Erick Rosales appeals the trial court’s imposition of community custody

conditions in his judgment and sentence for convictions of three counts of third degree child rape

and one count of a sexual assault protection order violation.

       We hold that (1) as the State concedes, the trial court erred when it imposed the condition

prohibiting use of unauthorized electronic media; (2) the trial court erred when it imposed the

condition requiring Rosales to submit to urine and/or breath screening at the direction of his

community corrections officer (CCO); (3) as the State concedes, the trial court erred when it

imposed the condition requiring Rosales to submit to polygraph examinations at the direction of

his CCO without specifying that the purpose of the examinations was to ensure compliance with

other conditions; (4) as the State concedes, the crime victim penalty assessment (VPA) and the

DNA collection fee must be stricken.

       Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to (1) strike from Rosales’s judgment and

sentence the community custody condition prohibiting use of unauthorized electronic media, the

community custody condition requiring Rosales to submit to urine and/or breath screening at the
No. 57463-2-II

direction of the CCO, and the VPA and DNA collection fee; and (2) modify the community

custody condition requiring Rosales to submit to polygraph examinations at the direction of his

CCO by specifying that the purpose of the examinations is limited to ensuring compliance with

other community custody conditions.

                                             FACTS

       In July 2022, a jury found Rosales guilty of three counts of third degree child rape and

one count of sexual assault protection order violation. The convictions arose from incidents in

which Rosales had sex with a minor. There was no indication in the record that alcohol or

controlled substances contributed to these offenses.

       The trial court imposed 14 months of community custody on the three child rape

convictions. The court’s community custody conditions included the following:

       • No unauthorized use of electronic media
       ....
       • No possession or consumption of controlled substances without lawful
       prescription
       • Submit to urine and/or breath screening at the direction of the Community
       Corrections Officer
       • Submit to polygraph examinations at the direction of the Community Corrections
       Officer

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 107. There was no condition prohibiting the consumption of alcohol.

       In addition, the court imposed the $500 VPA and a $100 DNA collection fee as legal

financial obligations (LFOs).

       Rosales appeals his judgment and sentence.

                                           ANALYSIS

A.     COMMUNITY CUSTODY CONDITIONS

       Rosales argues that the trial court erred in imposing community custody conditions

prohibiting use of unauthorized electronic media, requiring him to submit to urine and/or breath

                                                2
No. 57463-2-II

screenings, and requiring him to submit to polygraph examinations. We agree that the first two

conditions must be stricken and the third condition must be modified.

       1.   Legal Principles

       Under RCW 9.94A.703, a trial court may impose three forms of community custody

conditions: mandatory, waivable, and discretionary. RCW 9.94A.703(2) states that the trial

court shall order certain conditions unless waived. One of the waivable conditions is that the

offender must “[r]efrain from possessing or consuming controlled substances except pursuant to

lawfully issued prescriptions.” RCW 9.94A.703(2)(c).

       RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f) states that the trial court has discretion to require an offender to

“[c]omply with any crime-related prohibitions. Under RCW 9.94A.030(10), a “crime-related

prohibition” is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances

of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” There must be a basis for connecting

the condition to the crime. State v. Geyer, 19 Wn. App. 2d 321, 331, 496 P.3d 322 (2021).

       We review de novo the sentencing court’s statutory authority to impose a particular

community custody condition. State v. Houck, 9 Wn. App. 2d 636, 646, 446 P.3d 646 (2019).

Otherwise, we review community custody conditions for an abuse of discretion. State v.

Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d 234, 238, 449 P.3d 619 (2019). And determining whether community

custody conditions are crime-related is discretionary, and a trial court does not abuse its

discretion if there is a reasonable relationship between the crime of conviction and the condition.

State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 683-84, 425 P.3d 847 (2018). However, imposing an

unconstitutional condition necessarily is an abuse of discretion. Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d at 238

                                                 3
No. 57463-2-II

       If we determine a sentencing court imposed an unauthorized condition on community

custody, we remedy the error by remanding to the sentencing court with instruction to strike the

unauthorized condition. State v. O’Cain, 144 Wn. App. 772, 775, 184 P.3d 1262 (2008).

            a.   Electronic Media Condition

       Rosales argues, and the State concedes, that the community custody condition prohibiting

use of unauthorized electronic media condition is improper because it is not related to the

circumstances of offenses for which he was convicted. We agree.

       Rosales’s convictions had nothing to do with electronic media. Therefore, this condition

is not crime related. We remand for the trial court to strike this condition from Rosales’s

judgment and sentence.

            b.   Urine and/or Breath Screening Condition

       Rosales argues that the community custody condition requiring him to “[s]ubmit to urine

and/or breath screening at the direction of the Community Corrections Officer,” CP at 107, is

unconstitutional because it invades his right to privacy. The State argues that because the court

properly prohibited Rosales from using controlled substances, it may require him to submit to

urinalysis and/or breath testing to monitor compliance with this prohibition. We agree with

Rosales.

       The community custody condition prohibiting use of nonprescription controlled

substances is a waivable condition under RCW 9.94A.703(2)(c). Therefore, the trial court had

authority to impose the condition even though it was not related to Rosales’s underlying crimes.

See In re Pers. Restraint of Brettell, 6 Wn. App. 2d 161, 173, 430 P.3d 677 (2018). Rosales does

not challenge the imposition of this condition.

                                                  4
No. 57463-2-II

       The trial court necessarily has the ability to enforce statutorily authorized community

custody conditions. State v. Vant, 145 Wn. App. 592, 604, 186 P.3d 1149 (2008). Therefore,

imposing a urine/breath screening condition to ensure compliance with other conditions

generally is not an abuse of discretion. Id.

       However, the State concedes that the urine/breath screening condition should specify that

its purpose is only to monitor compliance with the prohibition against consumption of controlled

substances. The trial court did not impose a condition prohibiting Rosales from consuming

alcohol. And there is no indication that breath screening can assist in monitoring compliance

with the prohibition against consumption of controlled substances. Therefore, we conclude that

imposition of the breath screening condition constituted an abuse of discretion.

       The more significant question here involves the urine screening condition, and the issue

is not whether the condition is an abuse of discretion. The issue is whether the urine screening

condition is unconstitutional. As noted above, imposing an unconstitutional condition is an

abuse of discretion. Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d at 238.

       Urine testing is a search that implicates privacy interests under article I, section 7 of the

Washington Constitution. State v. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d 118, 122-24, 399 P.3d 1141 (2017). A

person on probation has less constitutional privacy protection than other citizens. Id. at 124.

However, “this does not mean that they have no privacy rights at all in their bodily fluids.” Id. at

125.

       In Olsen, the trial court required an offender on probation after being convicted of driving

under the influence (DUI) to submit to random urinalysis testing to ensure compliance with

conditions prohibiting consumption of alcohol or for controlled substances. Id. at 121. The

court stated that even though probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy, random drug

                                                  5
No. 57463-2-II

testing is only lawful where it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Id. at 127-

28. The court upheld the condition under the facts of that case because the State had a

compelling interest in supervising DUI probationers, and the random urinalysis was narrowly

tailored to meet that interest. Id. at 128, 134.

       An important basis for the court’s holding in Olsen was that the offender was convicted

of DUI, and the State had a compelling interest in monitoring DUI offenders to assess their

progress toward rehabilitation. Id. at 128-29. In addition, the court stated, “Olsen was convicted

of DUI, a crime involving abuse of drugs and alcohol. A probationer convicted of DUI can

expect to be monitored for consumption of drugs and alcohol.” Id. at 133.

       Unlike the offender in Olsen, Rosales was not charged with a drug-related offense. And

nothing in the record indicates that controlled substances contributed to Rosales’s offense.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that this community custody condition was narrowly tailored to

achieve a compelling state interest.

       Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to strike the urine and/or breath screening

community custody condition from Rosales’s judgment and sentence.

             c. Polygraph Condition

       Rosales argues that the community custody condition requiring Rosales to “[s]ubmit to

polygraph examinations at the direction of the Community Corrections Officer,” CP at 107,

violates the Fifth Amendment unless modified to limit the condition to monitoring compliance

with other community custody conditions. The State concedes that condition should contain

language specifying that the purpose of the polygraph testing must be limited to monitoring

compliance with other community custody conditions. We agree.

                                                   6
No. 57463-2-II

       “A trial court has authority to impose monitoring conditions such as polygraph testing.”

State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 342, 957 P.2d 655 (1998), abrogated on other grounds by State v.

Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010). However, polygraph testing should be

limited to monitoring the offender’s “compliance with the community placement order and not

as a fishing expedition to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present.” State v. Combs,

102 Wn. App. 949, 953, 10 P.3d 1101 (2000). The judgment and sentence should explicitly

contain this monitoring compliance language. Id.

       Accordingly, we conclude that the community custody condition be modified to contain

language limiting the purpose of the polygraph testing to monitoring compliance with other

community custody conditions.

B.     IMPOSITION OF LFOS

       Rosales argues, and the State concedes, that the $500 VPA and the $100 DNA collection

fee should be stricken under the recent statutory amendments. We agree.

       Effective July 1, 2023, RCW 7.68.035(4) prohibits courts from imposing the VPA on

indigent defendants as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). See State v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d 1, 16,

530 P.3d 1048 (2023). Effective July 1, 2023, LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449, § 4, eliminated the $100

DNA collection fee for all defendants. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 17. Although these amendments

took effect after Rosales’s sentencing, it applies to cases pending on appeal. Id. at 16.

       RCW 10.01.160(3) states that a defendant is indigent if they meet the criteria in RCW

10.101.010(3)(a) through (c). The trial court found that Rosales was indigent as defined in RCW

10.101.010(3)(a)-(c). Therefore, the $500 VPA must be stricken from Rosales’s judgment and

sentence. And the DNA collection fee also must be stricken.

                                                 7
No. 57463-2-II

                                          CONCLUSION

        We remand for the trial court to (1) strike from Rosales’s judgment and sentence the

community custody condition prohibiting use of unauthorized electronic media, the community

custody condition requiring Rosales to submit to urine and/or breath screening at the direction of

the CCO, and the VPA and the DNA collection fee; and (2) modify the community custody

condition requiring Rosales to submit to polygraph examinations at the direction of the CCO by

specifying that the purpose of the examinations is limited to ensuring compliance with other

community custody conditions.

        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.

                                                      MAXA, P.J.

 We concur:

 VELJACIC, J.

 CHE, J.

                                                  8