Sentences for certain Washington criminal offenses may include community custody. The specific conditions of a defendant’s community custody depend on the offense for which the defendant was convicted. In some circumstances, certain community custody conditions are mandatory, some may be waived by the court, and others are discretionary. In a recent case, a defendant successfully challenged a community custody condition as unconstitutionally vague.
According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the facts were undisputed. The defendant was convicted of assault in the third degree with a deadly weapon following an incident in which he attacked someone with a broom. The defendant was sentenced within the standard range and the court also imposed certain community custody conditions. One condition required the defendant to stay in the geographic boundaries either identified by the corrections officer in writing or stated in the Stay Out of Drug Area order.
The defendant appealed this condition, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague.
The Washington State Constitution provides due process protections against overly vague laws. Pursuant to Article 1, Section 3 of the Washington State Constitution, the state must give citizens fair warning of prohibited conduct. A community custody condition is unconstitutional for vagueness if it does not provide “sufficient definiteness” of the criminal offense for an ordinary person to understand what conduct is being prohibited or if it fails to provide “ascertainable standards of guilt to protect against arbitrary enforcement.” State v. Bahl.
The appeals court compared the language in the community custody condition in this case to the conditions in State v. Greenfield and State v. Irwin, which similarly deferred to a corrections officer to define geographic boundaries. The appeals court in both cases held the community custody conditions were unconstitutionally vague. The Irwin court concluded that the condition did not provide sufficient notice of the conduct that was proscribed. Even if notice was sufficient when the corrections officer identified the prohibited locations, the condition would still be unconstitutionally vague because it would be subject to arbitrary enforcement.
The appeals court concluded the condition in this case was similar because it did not give a sufficient description of the applicable geographic boundaries and was subject to arbitrary enforcement.
The appeals court distinguished the cases cited by the state because they did not involve geographic boundaries placed on the defendant.
As in Irwin, the appeals court noted the geographic condition needed additional information, such as a list of prohibited locations or clarifying language. The appeals court also noted in a footnote that the condition did not state a reason or indicate what type of behavior it was intended to address. The appeals court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to strike the challenged community custody provision.
This case illustrates that courts sometimes attempt to impose vague or otherwise unconstitutional community custody conditions on defendants during sentencing. In this case, even the purpose of the community custody condition was not clear. Criminal defendants should seek guidance from a knowledgeable Washington criminal defense attorney to protect their rights. If you are facing criminal charges, contact Blair & Kim, PLLC at (206) 622-6562.