State v. Maples, 286 P.3d 386

Maples appeals two community placement conditions from a 2011 resentencing for a 2008 second degree murder conviction.
The 1988 statute authorized certain community placement terms but did not expressly authorize a preapproved placement address for non-sex offenses.
The trial court imposed two conditions: (7) affirmative acts to monitor compliance with court orders as required by DOC, and (8) for sex offenses, electronic monitoring with residence approved by DOC.
This court previously remanded for resentencing; Maples argued the preapproved address condition exceeded authority and sought its removal.
The majority holds the preapproved address condition was unauthorized under the 1988 framework and retroactivity rules, so it must be struck; the compliance-monitoring condition is valid under 1997 amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the preapproved placement address authorized for Maples?	Maples lacked authority because he was not a sex offender and Capello foreclosed such an order under the 1988 framework.	The 2002 amendments broadened DOC authority to require a preapproved residence for all offenders, including Maples.	Preapproved address must be stricken; amendments applied prospectively only.
Is the compliance-monitoring condition valid as to Maples?	Affirmative acts to monitor compliance were not a mandatory 1988 condition and exceeded authority.	1997 amendments added compliance-monitoring requirements, and Riles held these amendments clarified meaning; valid imposing.	Compliance-monitoring condition is valid.
Should the cost bill be disturbed on appeal?	Object to the cost bill due to reduced sentence on appeal.	Waived objections by failure to timely raise them.	Objections waived; no remand on costs.

In re Personal Restraint of Capello, 106 Wn. App. 576 (2001) (address preapproval issues under 1988 act; retroactivity contested)
In re Personal Restraint of Stewart, 115 Wn. App. 319 (2003) (separation of powers; legislative amendments cannot retroactively contravene judicial construction)
Hale v. Wellpinit School District No. 49, 165 Wn.2d 494 (2009) (legislature may alter policy; does not violate separation of powers when within authority)
Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 170 Wn.2d 247 (2010) (reaffirmed Hale; legislature's amendments can be within authority without overruling controlling precedent)
In re F.D. Processing, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 452 (1992) (curative amendments retroactive when not contravening judicial construction)
State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326 (1998) (1997 amendments clarified statutes; did not violate separation of powers)
Barstad v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 145 Wn.2d 528 (2002) (doctrine on retroactivity and curative amendments)