Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Luckey

October 28, 1996

STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESPONDENT,
v.
DINO O. LUCKEY, APPELLANT.



Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 94-1-04830-5. Date filed: 02/06/95. Judge signing: Hon. Patricia H. Aitken.

PER CURIAM. Dino Luckey appeals a judgment and sentence following his guilty plea to one count of felony communication with a minor for immoral purposes. He argues the sentencing court exceeded its statutory authority in imposing as conditions of community placement that he submit to polygraph and plethysmograph testing and also obtain a sexual deviancy evaluation and treatment. We strike only the testing condition and remand for modification consistent with this opinion.

Luckey was sentenced to a standard-range term of 22 months and a two-year term of community placement with the following conditions:

10. Submit to polygraph and plethysmograph testing upon the request of your therapist and/or Community Corrections Officer, at your own expense.

20. Within 30 days of release from confinement, obtain a sexual deviancy evaluation and, if deemed appropriate by that evaluation, enter into treatment and not discontinue treatment without permission of CCO. Relying on State v. Flores-Moreno, 72 Wash. App. 733, 866 P.2d 648, review denied, 124 Wash. 2d 1009, 879 P.2d 292 (1994), Luckey argues the testing condition is invalid because it is overbroad, failing to restrict the testing to "crime-related" questions or examinations. We agree that it is too broad. The condition is therefore stricken and the matter remanded for modification limiting the condition to examinations on crime-related topics.

Next, Luckey argues the condition requiring a sexual deviancy evaluation and treatment if appropriate violates the Sentencing Reform Act by requiring affirmative rehabilitative conduct. We disagree. Former RCW 9.94A.120(8)(c)(iii) authorizes such condition by allowing the court to order an offender to "participate in crime-related treatment or counseling services". See State v. Eaton, 82 Wash. App. 723, 732, 919 P.2d 116 (1996).

We find no error in this condition.

We remand the matter to the trial court for modification of the testing condition, consistent with this opinion. In addition, because both parties acknowledge that the community placement conditions were inadvertently omitted from Appendix H of the judgment and sentence, the trial court should attach the corrected community placement conditions to the judgment and sentence.

19961028 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.