Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division I
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                       DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                )      No.  65916-2-I
                                                    )
              Respondent/Cross-Appellant,           )
          v.                                        )      UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                                    )
BRIAN KEITH ENGLISH,                                )
                                                    )
              Appellant/Cross-Respondent.           )      FILED:  January 30, 2012

       Schindler, J.  --  Brian Keith English was convicted by a jury of possession of 

methamphetamine. The court imposed a term of incarceration to be followed by 12

months of community custody.  As a condition of community custody, the court

authorized electronic monitoring through the use of a global positioning satellite (GPS) 

tracking device.  English argues that GPS monitoring is neither a proper crime-related 

condition of community custody, nor does the record support the imposition of GPS 

tracking as a means to monitor any other court-imposed condition.   We agree and 

remand to strike the condition.

                                            FACTS

       On January 20, 2010, a police officer noticed Brian Keith English and a female 

walking down an Everett street. The officer approached English, grabbed his hand,  

No.  65916-2-I/2

and told English he was under arrest for an outstanding warrant.1 English jerked his 

hand away and fled.  The officer pursued English.  English ran into an alley and then 

into the back yard of a residence bordering the alley.  The officer saw English drop the

backpack he was carrying in the back yard and then run through the side yard of the 

residence, through the front yard.  English was eventually apprehended in the back 

yard of a neighboring residence.  Police officers were unable to find the backpack, but 

did find several small baggies of methamphetamine along the route English took during 

his attempt to escape arrest.  

       English was charged with possession of a controlled substance while on 

community custody.  The jury found him guilty.  

       At sentencing, the parties agreed that English had an offender score of 11.  The 

State recommended a mid-range sentence of 18 months.  The State explained that it 

would normally recommend the maximum sentence within the sentencing range based 

on an offender score of 11, but did not do so in this case because the majority of 

English's convictions were for "status offenses" based on his failure to register as a sex 

offender.  Based on the recommendation of English's Community Corrections Officer 

(CCO), the State also asked the court to impose a chemical dependency evaluation 

and treatment to address English's "chemical dependency issues."    

       At the time of sentencing, English was subject to electronic monitoring with a

GPS tracking device which was scheduled to be removed a few weeks after the 

       1 The warrant apparently issued because of English's failure to report to his Community 
Corrections Officer.  
                                               2 

No.  65916-2-I/3

sentencing hearing.2 The prosecutor told the court that according to English's CCO, 

GPS monitoring was a "good thing" for English because he was often homeless and 

difficult to supervise.  Noting that the Department of Corrections (DOC) has express 

statutory authority to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of community custody 

only for those convicted of sex offenses, the State requested that the court impose a 
condition authorizing GPS monitoring during English's term of community custody.3  

       The defense agreed with the recommendation to impose a mid-range sentence 

and had "no objection" to a condition to require English to obtain a drug dependency 

evaluation and treatment, observing that English's criminal history was largely the 

result of the "circular effect of substance abuse and homelessness."  English also 

acknowledged he had a "drug problem" for which he had not had "really any treatment 

to think of."

        The court imposed a mid-range sentence.  In addition, the court ordered 

English to participate in a "chemical dependency evaluation" and to "fully comply with 

all recommended treatment."  The court checked a separate box stating:  "The 

defendant shall comply with the following crime-related prohibitions," and interlineated 

that English's "CCO may place a G.P.S. device on the defendant at his (CCO's) 

discretion."      

                                          ANALYSIS

       2 It appears that English was subject to electronic monitoring because he was being supervised 
by the Department of Corrections on multiple causes for failure to register as a sex offender.    
       3 See RCW 9.94A.704(5) ("If the offender was sentenced pursuant to a conviction for a sex 
offense, the department may impose electronic monitoring."). 
                                               3 

No.  65916-2-I/4

       For the first time on appeal, English contends that the trial court had no authority 

to authorize GPS monitoring because the condition bears no relationship to the crime 

of possession of a controlled substance, nor does it relate to the specific circumstances 
of his crime.4 Although English did not object to the community custody condition 

below, because he contends that the court lacked statutory authority to impose the 

condition, we can address his claim for the first time on appeal.  State v. Jones, 118 

Wn. App. 199, 204, 76 P.3d 258 (2003) (sentence imposed without statutory authority 

can be raised for the first time on appeal).

       "A trial court may impose only a sentence which is authorized by statute."  State 

v. Barnett, 139 Wn.2d 462, 464, 987 P.2d 626 (1999).  Because it is solely the 

legislature's province to fix legal punishments, a proper community custody condition 

must be authorized by the legislature.  State v. Kolesnik, 146 Wn. App. 790, 806, 192 

P.3d 937 (2008), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1050 (2009).  

       In general, conditions that do not reasonably relate to the circumstances of the 

crime are unlawful unless specifically permitted by statute.  Jones, 118 Wn. App. at 

205.  We generally review the imposition of a crime-related prohibition for an abuse of 

discretion.  State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007).  However, 

the issue of whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in imposing 

community custody conditions is reviewed de novo.  Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d at 110;

       4 The State does not argue that English's challenge is not ripe, and for purposes of this appeal, 
we assume without deciding that it is.  State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 786, 790 -- 91, 239 
P.3d 1059 (2010) (claim is ripe for appeal if the issues raised are primarily legal, they do not require 
further factual development, the challenged action is final, and the defendant is burdened by the 
condition without further action by the State).
                                               4 

No.  65916-2-I/5

State v. Motter, 139 Wn. App. 797, 801, 162 P.3d 1190 (2007).

       Under the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, 

conditions of community custody may include "crime-related treatment or counseling 

services;" participation in "rehabilitative programs" or other "affirmative conduct 

reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense, the offender's risk of 

reoffending, or the safety of the community;" and compliance with "crime-related 

prohibitions." RCW 9.94A.703(3)(c), (d), (f);  Kolesnik, 146 Wn. App. at 807.  A crime-

related condition prohibits conduct that "directly relates to the circumstances of the 

crime for which the offender has been convicted." RCW 9.94A.030(10).  Additional 

conditions may be imposed to monitor or ensure compliance with crime-related 

sentencing conditions.  RCW 9.94A.030(10) ("affirmative acts necessary to monitor 

compliance with the order of a court may be required by [DOC]").

          The State does not argue that GPS monitoring is related to the circumstances

of the crime of methamphetamine possession.  Rather, the State asserts that, like 

polygraph testing, GPS tracking serves a monitoring purpose and was properly ordered

to monitor compliance with other court-imposed conditions.  In support of this 

argument, the State relies on State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 957 P.2d 655 (1998).  

Riles does not support the State's argument.  

       In Riles, the defendants in the two consolidated cases were convicted of sex 

offenses.  They challenged conditions of community placement requiring submission to 

polygraphs and plethysmograph testing.  The version of the SRA in effect at the time of 

                                               5 

No.  65916-2-I/6

the defendants' crimes provided that crime-related conditions could not include orders 
directing an offender to participate in rehabilitative or other affirmative conduct.5  The 

defendants argued that the conditions impermissibly required affirmative conduct and 

were not crime-related conditions.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 329-31.  The court considered 

the purposes of the SRA to "protect the public and to offer the offender an opportunity 

for self-improvement," and subsequent amendments to the SRA confirming the 

legislature's intent to allow conditions requiring affirmative acts necessary to monitor 

compliance with sentencing conditions.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 341, 342-43.  The court

concluded that imposition of monitoring conditions was permissible.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d 

at 342-43.  

       The court then considered whether polygraph and plethysmograph testing were

properly imposed as monitoring conditions.  Based on the "validity" of polygraph testing 

as an investigative tool, and because "polygraph testing on sex offenders" was 

"consistent" with regulatory guidelines for monitoring use in sex offender treatment, the 

court upheld imposition of polygraph testing.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 342.  But the court 

concluded that the evidence did not support the imposition of plethysmograph testing 

as a monitoring tool because evidence supported its use only for purposes of

assessment and treatment of sex offenders.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 344-46.  Therefore, 

the court concluded that plethysmograph testing could be ordered only in conjunction 

with crime-related sex offender treatment.  Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 345.      

       5 The SRA in effect at the time did not include the language it now contains expressly authorizing 
imposition of "affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance" with court-ordered conditions of 
community custody and conditions which require affirmative conduct related to the crime, risk of 
reoffense, or public safety .  See RCW 9.94A.030(10); RCW 9.94A.703(3)(d).
                                               6 

No.  65916-2-I/7

       The State contends that the GPS monitoring condition imposed here is likewise 

a "necessary tool" to enforce the court's imposition of a chemical dependency 

evaluation and treatment.  However, the record in this case reveals no connection 

between the drug treatment conditions imposed and the authorization of GPS 

monitoring.  There was no argument or evidence presented that GPS monitoring would 

ensure or facilitate English's compliance with the drug dependency evaluation or 

treatment.  Instead, it is clear from the record that the recommendation to allow GPS 

tracking was solely based on the fact that English was homeless and difficult to 

supervise in the community.  The court's order contains no indication that the GPS 

tracking was imposed in order to monitor English's compliance with drug treatment.  

Unlike in Riles, the record reveals no nexus between the purported monitoring 

condition and a lawfully imposed crime-related custody condition.  Therefore, we 

remand to permit the trial court to strike the invalid condition.      

WE CONCUR:

                                               7