State of Washington v. Tammy Lynn Davis
34766-4
Wash. Ct. App.Sep 28, 2017Background
- On December 23, 2015, Tammy Lynn Davis was observed on store surveillance dropping a baggie from her pocket that contained methamphetamine; she was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine).
- At sentencing, defense counsel urged treatment over confinement and moved for work crew in lieu of jail, prompting the court to find Davis had a chemical dependency that contributed to the offense and to order a chemical dependency evaluation and recommended treatment.
- The court imposed a 30-day sentence with 27 days served via work crew, a 12‑month community custody term, various community custody conditions (including prohibiting frequenting alcohol‑sales establishments and requiring random urinalysis/BAC/other tests), and LFOs totaling $1,650 plus a later-determined witness fee; monthly payments were set and later reduced to $15.
- At a subsequent hearing Davis explained she lived on SSDI (~$960/month), had lost housing aid due to the felony, and could not afford LFOs; the court reduced monthly payments and struck the witness fee but did not explicitly find Davis could pay the full judgment.
- Davis appealed, challenging the chemical‑dependency finding, the 12‑month community custody term, certain community custody conditions, and the imposition of discretionary LFOs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of chemical‑dependency finding & treatment requirement | Trial court lacked evidence Davis was chemically dependent; the finding was improper | Finding was necessitated by Davis’s request for work crew/treatment option at sentencing | Denied (invited‑error): Davis requested treatment/work release, which required the finding under RCW; cannot complain on appeal |
| Length of community custody (12 months) | 12 months was excessive/unauthorized | RCW authorizes up to 12 months when sentence includes treatment | Affirmed: 12 months is authorized when treatment is part of sentence |
| Prohibition on frequenting places whose primary income is alcohol sales (taverns, cocktail lounges) | Condition is overbroad and not crime‑related | Condition aimed to prevent relapse or exchanges involving alcohol | Reversed: condition not reasonably or directly related to Davis’s possession offense; court abused discretion |
| Requirement to submit to random urinalysis/BAC/other tests | Tests overbroad because offense involved methamphetamine, not alcohol | Random testing is authorized to enforce treatment and other community custody conditions | Partially affirmed: testing to enforce an alcohol prohibition is valid; testing for drug/alcohol as part of treatment compliance is permissible |
| Imposition of discretionary LFOs | Court failed to adequately consider present/future ability to pay; Davis is indigent and on fixed disability income | State noted Wakefield but argued preservation; trial court reduced payments | Reversed as to discretionary LFOs: court erred by imposing them without sufficient consideration that payments would not even cover accruing interest; remand to strike discretionary LFOs |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 (Wash. 2016) (courts must seriously question ability to pay before imposing LFOs; caution against minuscule payments that never reduce principal)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (consider ability to pay when imposing LFOs)
- State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867 (Wash. 1990) (invited error doctrine bars a party from inducing an error and then complaining on appeal)
- State v. Warnock, 174 Wn. App. 608 (Wash. App. 2013) (finding of chemical dependency required when defendant seeks treatment alternative under statute)
- State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing community custody conditions; crime‑related condition must be reasonably/directly related)