State of Washington v. Herbert Aaron Martin, II, 34037-6

Background

In March 2015 Martin sold methamphetamine to an undercover informant at his Ellensburg residence and was charged with delivery of a controlled substance (later treated as possession with intent to deliver).
At trial the school district transportation director testified that almost every location in Ellensburg is within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop; he did not state whether the identified stops were active at the time of the offense.
A jury convicted Martin of possession with intent to deliver and answered yes to a special-verdict question that the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.
At sentencing the court imposed community custody conditions (including drug- and alcohol-related restrictions) and $200 in court costs; other discretionary LFOs were struck.
Martin appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence for the school-bus enhancement, the special verdict form, several community custody conditions, LFOs, and noting a scrivener’s error in the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Martin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop	Testimony did not establish that the identified stops were active at the time of the offense, so enhancement lacks support	Director's long tenure and testimony that almost every location is within 1,000 feet permitted a reasonable inference supporting the enhancement	Affirmed: evidence sufficient to support the enhancement
Special verdict form wording	Form asked about delivery within a school zone (different wording than instruction), so court lacked authority to impose enhancement	No contemporaneous objection; form explicitly tied the special verdict to a guilty finding on possession with intent to deliver	Affirmed: no risk jury applied enhancement without finding guilt; presumed jury followed instructions
Vagueness and First Amendment challenge to community custody conditions 7 & 8 (association/areas with drugs)	Conditions are overbroad, unclear as to lawful prescribed substances, and chill association	Conditions are crime-related supervision terms	Remanded: conditions are vague/overbroad; court directed to modify wording to limit prohibition to unlawful drug activity
Crime-relatedness of alcohol-related conditions 9 & 10 (possession/purchase; enter establishments where alcohol is main revenue)	Purchase and entry bans exceed authority because crime was not alcohol-related	Court has discretion to prohibit possession/consumption; purchasing ban is ancillary	Partially reversed: purchasing/possession/consumption ban (condition 9) upheld as related; condition 10 (bar entry restriction) stricken as not crime-related

Key Cases Cited

State v. Farnsworth, 185 Wn.2d 768 (Wash. 2016) (State must prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Tongate, 93 Wn.2d 751 (Wash. 1980) (same burden applies to sentencing enhancements)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (in sufficiency review, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State)
State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576 (Wash. 2014) (presumption that jury follows instructions)
State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993) (conditions may bar association with persons engaged in illegal activity related to the offense)
State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App.) (2015) (abuse of discretion review for community custody conditions)
State v. Sanchez-Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (Wash. 2011) (vagueness standard for conditions)
State v. Cordero, 170 Wn. App. 351 (Wash. Ct. App.) (2012) (crime-related condition review)
State v. Kinzle, 181 Wn. App. 774 (Wash. Ct. App.) (2014) (striking non–crime-related condition)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (considerations for discretionary LFOs)
State v. Munoz-Rivera, 190 Wn. App. 870 (Wash. Ct. App.) (2015) (correction of scrivener’s errors)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1995) (claims requiring factual development belong in PRP, not direct appeal)