91 Wash. App. 635 | Wash. Ct. App. | 1998
— Lamar Armstrong appeals various conditions of community placement imposed by the trial court as part of his sentence for a sex offense. Because Armstrong has not shown that any condition fails to comply with the Sentencing Reform Act or is manifestly unreasonable, we affirm.
Lamar Armstrong was convicted of rape of a child. The court was required by statute to impose conditions of community placement as a part of the sentence.
Community placement involves six standard conditions
As a part of any sentence imposed under (a) or (b) of this subsection, the court may also order any of the following special conditions:
(i) The offender shall remain within, or outside of, a specified geographical boundary;
(ii) The offender shall not have direct or indirect contact with the victim of the crime or a specified class of individuals;
(iii) The offender shall participate in crime-related treatment or counseling services;
(iv) The offender shall not consume alcohol;
(v) The offender shall comply with any crime-related prohibitions; or
(vi) For an offender convicted of a felony sex offense against a minor victim after June 6, 1996, the offender shall comply with any terms and conditions of community placement imposed by the department of corrections relating to contact between the sex offender and a minor victim or a child of similar age or circumstance as a previous victim.[3 ]
Armstrong asks us to strike various special conditions that the court here elected to impose as part of his community placement. In imposing these conditions, the trial court considered recommendations in the presentence report submitted by the Community Corrections Officer.
REVIEWABILITY OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Armstrong did not object at the sentencing hearing to any of the conditions imposed by the trial court, aside from voicing a concern pertaining to his health. This court generally will not address an issue which was not
Under the rule of review established in Paine, Roche and Moen, Armstrong did not waive his right to review the legality of the community placement conditions by his failure to object below. We note, however, that a defendant who genuinely perceives conditions of community placement as unfair or impractical is well advised to raise those concerns in the trial court. The right to have review of a sentence to correct errors of law does not carry with it a right to a remand for fuller development of pertinent facts. If Armstrong had raised his objections in the trial court, the State could have made a more complete record in sup
In the present case, the presentence report is not part of the record on appeal, so this court does not know for what reason, if any, the Community Corrections Officer requested the special conditions. We therefore can give only a limited review to Armstrong’s argument that a prohibition against viewing pornography is not “crime-related.” The statutory definition of a “crime-related” prohibition is an order “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”
As explained in the remainder of this opinion, the panel has concluded that the sentence should be affirmed. Because the remainder of the opinion lacks precedential value, it will not be published but will be filed for public record in accordance with the rules governing unpublished opinions.
RCW 9.94A.120(9)(b) (formerly codified in subsection (8)).
RCW 9.94A.120(9)(b).
RCW 9.94A.120(9)(c).
State v. Wiley, 63 Wn. App. 480, 482, 820 P.2d 513 (1991), overruled in part, State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d 535, 547, 919 P.2d 69 (1996).
State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d 535, 547, 919 P.2d 69 (1996).
State v. Paine, 69 Wn. App. 873, 884, 850 P.2d 1369 (1993).
State v. Roche, 75 Wn. App. 500, 513, 878 P.2d 497 (1994).
State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d at 547.
State v. Paine, 69 Wn. App. at 884; State v. Moen, 129 Wn.2d at 545-47.
Id. at 547.
State v. Roche, 75 Wn. App. at 513.
State v. Garcia, 45 Wn. App. 132, 140, 724 P.2d 412 (1986); RAP 9.6.
RCW 9.94A.030(11) (1994).
See State v. Llamas-Villa, 67 Wn. App. 448, 456, 836 P.2d 239 (1992).