State Of Washington, Res. V. Harold Edward Jackson, App.

Case Date: 01/30/2012
Court: Court of Appeals Division I
Docket No: 65874-3

 
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).


Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 65874-3
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Res. V. Harold Edward Jackson, App.
File Date: 01/30/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Snohomish Superior Court
Docket No: 10-1-00023-7
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 07/14/2010
Judge signing: Honorable Kenneth L Cowsert

JUDGES
------
Authored byMarlin Appelwick
Concurring:Mary Kay Becker
Ronald Cox

COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------

Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC  
 Attorney at Law
 1908 E Madison St
 Seattle, WA, 98122

Counsel for Respondent(s)
 Seth Aaron Fine  
 Attorney at Law
 Snohomish Co Pros Ofc
 3000 Rockefeller Ave
 Everett, WA, 98201-4060

 John Jeppe Juhl  
 Attorney at Law
 3000 Rockefeller Ave
 Everett, WA, 98201-4046
			

     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                                  )         No. 65874-3-I
                       Respondent,
                                                  )         DIVISION ONE
                v.
                                                  )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 HAROLD EDWARD JACKSON,
                                                  )
                       Appellant.                           FILED: January 30, 2012
                                                  )

                                                  )

                                                  )

                                                  )

                                                  )

                                                  )

       Appelwick, J.  --  Jackson was convicted of custodial assault.  He was not taking 

medications prescribed for his acknowledged mental illness at the time of the offense.

The trial court ordered him to take all prescribed medications as a condition of 

community custody.  The trial court did not, as required by statute, make findings that 

Jackson is mentally ill and that his mental health status contributed to his offense. 

Because the record appears to provide the evidence necessary to support such 

findings and those facts were not contested below, we remand to the trial court to either 

enter the necessary findings or strike the condition.

                                            FACTS 

No. 65874-3-I/2

       On September 29, 2009, Harold Jackson turned himself in to serve a 30 day 

sentence in the Snohomish County Jail for driving on a suspended license.  When he 

arrived, he submitted documentation indicating that he needed to take medication for 

his bipolar disorder.  Nevertheless, he did not receive his medication between 

September 29 and October 4.  

       On October 4, Jackson came to believe he needed medical attention for scabies.  

He became disruptive, and Custody Officer Randall Williams told Jackson he would 

receive a minor violation for his behavior.  When Williams went to Jackson's cell to 

have Jackson sign the violation paperwork, Jackson asked him if he knew what piss 

was, and if he had ever had any thrown on him.  Jackson grabbed a styrofoam cup and 

threw its contents at Williams' head and shoulders.  Williams ordered a lockdown, took 

his shirt off, and began washing his eyes at a nearby eyewash station.  While Williams 

was washing his face, Jackson continued to yell and began swinging his crutches at 

the cell door.  

       Jackson was charged with and convicted of custodial assault.  At trial, the fact 

that Jackson did not take his medication for five days prior to the incident was 

discussed at length.  In closing, defense counsel asked the jury to remember that 

Jackson has mental health issues and had been sitting in jail for five days without his 

medications.  At sentencing, defense counsel reiterated that Jackson's criminal conduct 

was related to not taking his medication, and expressed concern that Jackson may 

have trouble getting his medication if he was sentenced to further jail time.  Jackson 

attached a letter from his treatment provider, Barbara Scott, to his sentencing 

memorandum.  Scott stated that Jackson maintains a fairly stable mood so long as he 

                                                   2 

No. 65874-3-I/3

takes his prescribed medication.  She recommended that the trial court make whatever 

modifications possible to minimize the risk of harm to Jackson and others.  The trial 

court agreed that it would be unproductive to place Jackson back in the environment in 

which his problems arose.  It decided to instead sentence Jackson to four months 

electronic home  monitoring and nine months community custody.  As a community 

custody condition, the trial court ordered Jackson to take all his prescribed 

medications.  

       Jackson appeals.  He argues that the trial court did not have authority to order 

him to take his prescribed medications.  

                                        DISCUSSION

       We   review a crime-related community custody condition for an abuse of 

discretion.  State v. Brooks, 142 Wn. App. 842, 850, 176 P.3d 549 (2008).          A trial court 

abuses its discretion when its decision is based on untenable grounds, including those 

that are contrary to law.  Id.

       The trial court may require, as conditions of community custody, that an 

offender:

              (c) Participate in crime-related treatment or counseling services;
              (d) Participate in rehabilitative programs or otherwise perform 
       affirmative conduct reasonably related to the circumstances of the 
       offense, the offender's risk of reoffending, or the safety of the community.

RCW 9.94A.703(3).

       But, the trial court may only order an offender to undergo mental health 

treatment as a condition of community custody if it complies with statutory procedures.  

RCW 9.94B.080; Brooks, 142 Wn. App. at 851.  The court must find that reasonable 

                                                   3 

No. 65874-3-I/4

grounds exist to believe that the offender is a mentally ill person as defined in RCW 

71.24.025, and that the mental health condition likely influenced the offense.  RCW 

9.94B.080; Brooks, 142 Wn. App. at 851.  An order requiring mental health treatment 

must be based on a presentence report and, if applicable, mental status evaluations 

that have been filed with the court to determine the offenders competency or eligibility 

for a defense of insanity.  RCW 9.94B.080;  Brooks, 142 Wn. App. at 851.  These 

requirements are mandatory.  See Brooks, 142 Wn. App. at 851; State v. Jones, 118 

Wn. App. 199, 210, 76 P.3d 258 (2003).

       Jackson argued below that his failure to take medication for his bipolar disorder 

contributed to his offense.  He submitted a letter from his treatment provider indicating 

that he has a mental illness that is controllable with medication.  The State did not 

contest this assertion.   Nevertheless, Jackson now argues that there is no evidence

that the offense was related to his failure to take his prescribed medications, and that 

the trial court did not make required findings.  He argues that this court should strike 

the condition.  

       Jackson is correct that the trial court did not make the required findings.  The 

evidence overwhelmingly indicates, however, that Jackson does have a mental illness 

for which he was prescribed medication and that his failure to take that medication

contributed to his crime.  Jackson himself argued so below.  Further, his assertion that 

Jones and State v. Lopez, 142 Wn. App. 341, 354, 174 P.3d 1216 (2007), require that 

we strike the condition is incorrect.

       In Jones, the record appeared to contain enough evidence to support a finding 

that the defendant was mentally ill and that the illness contributed to the crime.  118

                                                   4 

No. 65874-3-I/5

Wn. App. at 202, 209.      The court remanded for the trial court to strike the condition, 

"unless it determines that it can presently and lawfully comply with RCW [9.94B.080]."  

Id.  By contrast, in Lopez, we struck a condition ordering the defendant to undergo 

psychiatric evaluation and treatment.  142 Wn. App. at 353-54.           But, Lopez does not 

mention any evidence that suggests the defendant was mentally ill.

       The trial court erred by conditioning Jackson's community custody on taking all 

prescribed medications without making findings that he was mentally ill and that his 

illness, absent the prescribed medication, contributed to his crime.  We remand for 

entry of the necessary findings or for striking the condition if such  findings are not 

supported by the record.

WE CONCUR:

                                                   5