Dеfendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.415. The trial court sentenced him to 36 months of supervised probation, subject to sevеral general and special conditions. Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in imposing special conditions of probаtion that prohibited him from having contact with minors or frequenting places where minors congregate. Defendant argues that those conditions are not reasonably related to his current offense or past offenses and that the trial court failed to otherwise create a sufficient factual record to justify the conditions. We agree with defendant and, accordingly, remand for resentencing.
We review the trial court’s imposition of probation conditions for errors of lаw. State v. Phillips,
“[Defendant] contacted this young woman * * * in the dollar store. She was trying on some reading glasses, he approached her, he complimented her on the glasses.
“She eventually left the store. She had a lot of purchases and an umbrella. She had planned to take the bus back to her apartment that was about a mile away.
“[Defendant] saw her struggling with her purchases, and took that opportunity to offer her a ride back to her apartment.
“She said that * * * he had a nice car. He seemed nice, and so she allowed him to take her back to her aрartment, and then when she was trying to put her purchases away he kept following her around the apartment.
“He was kissing her on the back of the head and neck, holding her very tightly in ways that made her very uncomfortable. She tried to hint to him that she didn’t like what he was doing. Tried to * * * hint to him that he needed to leave.
*102 “This went on for a substantial amount of time, three hours * * * was the estimate that he was in the apartment with her. She said she finally told him that she was going to walk him to his car, and she physically walked him back to thе car.”
The state also presented the court with defendant’s criminal history, although that information was not made part of the record. As far as we can discern from the record, defendant’s criminal history was composed of previous misdemeanors against women that were similar in nature to the current crime of conviction, as well as a prior “failure to register” offense. Although the details of defendant’s prior convictions were not presented, the state asserted thаt defendant “takes advantage of situations where he can find these vulnerable women, and put them in positions that they clearly do not want to be in.” No facts were presented that defendant had ever committed an offense involving minors. Indeed, the only evidence on that issue was defendant’s own statement to the cоurt that he had never had “a problem with minors.”
The state requested that several special conditions of probation be imposed, including conditions that defendant have no contact with minors and that he not visit places where minors usually congregate. Defendant objected to those conditions, arguing that they had nо rational relationship to his offense or his criminal history. The trial court ultimately imposed those and other conditions of probation. It explained, “[A]ll these charges involve vulnerable people. Minors are vulnerable people, perhaps more so, and * * * so this is a rational nexus of the request.”
On apрeal, defendant argues that the special conditions pertaining to minors were not reasonably related to his crime of conviction, the protection of the public, or his reformation. According to defendant, there was no evidence that he had committed crimes involving minors or crimes against vulnerable women, or that he was a threat to vulnerable people generally. The state responds that the record was sufficient and that the trial court acted within its disсretion.
Under ORS 137.540(2), a trial court has broad discretion to impose special conditions of probation. State v.
Here, there is no evidence that defendant has ever engaged in unlawful activity involving minors. His current offense involved a 38-year-old woman. His past оffenses also involved adult women. Even assuming that some of defendant’s victims were “vulnerable” — an offhand assertion that is not supported by any facts in the record — thеre is no evidence that defendant has a propensity to prey on vulnerable people generally. In other words, there is nothing to demonstrate that dеfendant poses a threat to minors. Nor does the record suggest that a prohibition on contacting minors (or being in their proximity) will aid in defendant’s rehabilitation. See State v. Donovan,
In short, there is no connection between defendant’s unlawful sexual conduct and his relationship to minors. The challenged special cоnditions of probation are not reasonably related to the protection of the public or reformation of defendant. Thus, those conditions are invalid. See, e.g., State v. Qualey,
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Notes
We note that Weems/Roberts v. Board of Parole,