State Of Washington v. Lawrence Starr
49327-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Starr was convicted of communication with a minor for immoral purposes and attempted child molestation in the first degree.
- At sentencing, Starr received 45 months minimum and life as to community custody and multiple conditions were imposed.
- One condition barred Starr from areas that cater to minor children without a responsible adult approved by DOC and a sexual deviancy provider.
- Another condition barred entering areas where minors congregate, with examples like school grounds and parks.
- A separate condition prohibited Starr from viewing or possessing sexually explicit material without prior approval, which the State concedes was not crime-related and should be struck.
- Starr appeals arguing vagueness of the area restrictions and the non-crime-related nature of the sexually explicit material ban; the State concedes the latter issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the area restrictions unconstitutionally vague? | Starr argues the areas prohibition lacks definite bounds and invites arbitrary enforcement. | State contends the lists and accompanying requirements provide sufficient notice and standards. | Not unconstitutionally vague; condition satisfies both prongs of vagueness test. |
| Is the viewing/possession of sexually explicit material crime-related and valid? | Starr claims the prohibition is not crime-related and vague. | State concedes the provision is not crime-related. | Strike the sexually explicit material prohibition; not crime-related. |
| Did Starr receive ineffective assistance of counsel on SAG claims? | Starr asserts several SAG issues (plea to lesser charge, excited utterance, hearsay, etc.). | Appellate review limited; many points inadequately briefed; not supported by record. | SAG arguments declined; no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (Wash. 2010) (due process vagueness standard for community custody conditions)
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (Wash. 2008) (ascertainable standards for enforcement; avoids arbitrary enforcement)
- State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (illustrative lists can satisfy vagueness prong one but must avoid discretion)
- State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (Wash. 2002) (substantial step standard for attempt cases)
- State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (Wash. 2015) (sufficiency of evidence; substantial step standard)