State Of Washington, Respondent V. Mark Charles Sandreth, Appellant

Case Date: 05/10/2012

 
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).


Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number: 42143-7
Title of Case: State Of Washington, Respondent V. Mark Charles Sandreth, Appellant
File Date: 05/10/2012

SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Clallam Superior Court
Docket No: 10-1-00054-1
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 04/12/2011
Judge signing: Honorable Kenneth Day Williams

JUDGES
------
Authored byMarywave Van Deren
Concurring:Joel Penoyar
Jill M Johanson

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)
 David L. Donnan  
 Washington Appellate Project
 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
 Seattle, WA, 98101-3635

 Elaine L Winters  
 Washington Appellate Project
 1511 3rd Ave Ste 701
 Seattle, WA, 98101-3635

Counsel for Respondent(s)
 Lewis M. Schrawyer  
 Attorney at Law
 223 E 4th St Ste 11
 Port Angeles, WA, 98362-3000
			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                             Respondent,                         No.  42143-7-II
                                                       Consolidated with No.  42146-1-II

       v.                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MARK CHARLES SANDRETH,
                             Appellant

       Van Deren, J.  --  Mark Sandreth appeals from two community conditions the trial court 

imposed when he pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of methamphetamine.1  

Sandreth argues that the condition requiring him to "remain out of places where alcohol is the 

chief item of sale" must be stricken because it is not a crime-related condition.2, 3 Clerk's Papers 

(CP) 10-1-00054-1 at 11; RCW 9.94A.030(10); RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f); State v. Jones, 118 Wn. 

App. 199, 207-08, 76 P.3d 258 (2003).  He also argues that the condition requiring him to 

1 A commissioner of this court initially considered Sandreth's appeal as a motion on the merits 
under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges.

2 Sandreth pleaded guilty under two separate cause numbers.  The clerk's papers in each case 
consist of separate, non-sequentially bound volumes.  For clarity, we cite to the clerk's papers for 
each case by their cause numbers, e.g., "CP 10-1-00054-1."

3 Sandreth also argues that the condition violates his constitutional right to freedom of 
association.  But, given the State's concessions, we decline to address this argument. 

No. 42143-7-II, consolidated with No. 42146-1-II

"submit to physical and/or psychological testing whenever required by Community Corrections 

Officer" is insufficiently tailored to his crime, thus "giv[ing] [his] community corrections officer 

unfettered power to chose any physical or psychological testing that could be used to monitor 

[his] compliance" with the terms of his community custody, including penile plethysmograph 

testing.  CP 10-1-00054-1 at 11; CP 10-1-00180-7 at 11; Brief of Appellant at 14.  Accepting the 

State's concessions, we remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the first condition and 

to clarify the second condition.     

                                            FACTS

       In separate cases, Sandreth pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of 

methamphetamine.  In the judgment and sentence under Clallam County Superior Court cause 

number 10-1-00054-1, the trial court imposed the following community custody condition:

       8.  You shall abstain from the use of alcohol and remain out of places where 
            alcohol is the chief item of sale.

CP 10-1-00054-1 at 11.  Under both Clallam County Superior Court cause numbers 10-1-00054-

1 and 10-1-00180-7, the trial court imposed the following community custody condition: 

       10.  During term of community supervision, you shall submit to physical and/or 
            psychological testing whenever required by Community Corrections Officer, 
            at your own expense, to assure compliance with Judgment and Sentence or 
            Department of Corrections requirements.

CP 10-1-00054-1 at 11; CP 10-1-00180-7 at 11.  He appeals.  

                                          ANALYSIS

I.     Community Custody Conditions

       The State concedes that the first condition must be stricken because it is not a crime-

related condition.  And while it doubts that any community corrections officer would order penile 

                                               2 

No. 42143-7-II, consolidated with No. 42146-1-II

plethysmograph testing for community custody imposed after convictions for unlawful possession 

of methamphetamines, it agrees that we should remand for clarification of the second condition.  

       We accept the State's concessions and remand Sandreth's judgment and sentence to (1) 

strike the condition requiring him to "remain out of places where alcohol is the chief item of sale"

and (2) clarify the condition requiring him to "submit to physical and/or psychological testing 

whenever required by Community Corrections Officer" to make clear appropriate tests to monitor 

his compliance with lawful community custody conditions imposed under RCW 9.94A.703 and 

.704. CP 10-1-00054-1 at 11; CP 10-1-00180-7 at 11.  

II.    Statement of Additional Grounds for Review

       Sandreth further contends in his RAP 10.10 statement of additional grounds for review 

(SAG) that (1) his two convictions should have merged, (2) he was denied a hearing on his 

request for return of property taken by the Port Angeles Police Department, and (3) he was 

subjected to prosecutorial vindictiveness because he asked for the return of his property.  

       Regarding Sandreth's SAG claims, his convictions were for unlawful possession on 

different dates and, thus, the crimes do not merge.  State v. Butler, 165 Wn. App. 820, 832-33, 

269 P.3d 315 (2012).  Sandreth also presents no evidence of a request for return of his property 

or of prosecutorial vindictiveness for making such a request; thus, we reject his claims regarding 

his property and prosecutorial vindictiveness.  

       We remand to the trial court to strike the first community custody provision and to clarify 

                                               3 

No. 42143-7-II, consolidated with No. 42146-1-II

the second condition.

       A majorityofthe panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it 

is so ordered.

                                                 Van Deren, J.
We concur:

Penoyar, C.J.

Johanson, J.

                                               4