Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County. Docket No: 95-1-02440-9. Date filed: 02/26/96. Judge signing: Hon. Kathleen O'Connor.
Authored by Dennis J. Sweeney. Concurring: Frank L. Kurtz, Stephen M. Brown.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweeney
SWEENEY, C.J. A sentencing court may impose a crime-related prohibition during a period of community supervision. RCW 9.94A.030(4). The sentencing court here prohibited Robert Arlie Jolstead, Jr., from taking a job which required that he handle money. The question presented is whether the trial Judge abused her discretion because the prohibition does not directly relate to the circumstances of the crime. RCW 9.94A.030(11). We conclude that it is sufficiently related and affirm.
Mr. Jolstead stole at least $1,750 from his employer's vending machines. He kept a key and continued to steal even after being fired by his employer for theft. He was charged with first degree theft and pleaded guilty to second degree theft. The court ordered restitution and 45 days of confinement, which was converted to 30 days of community service and 15 days of home monitoring. The court also imposed 12 months of community supervision. The community supervision included a requirement that Mr. Jolstead tell his current employer of the conviction and that he not take a job which required that he handle money. He appeals the prohibition on his handling money.
First, the State argues that we need not consider the assignment of error because Mr. Jolstead failed to object to the condition in the trial court. State v. Scott, 110 Wash. 2d 682, 685, 757 P.2d 492 (1988). We may, however, address a sentencing error even without an appropriate exception. State v. Moen, 129 Wash. 2d 535, 545, 919 P.2d 69 (1996). We elect to do so here.
RCW 9.94A.030(4) permits, but does not require, imposition of crime-related prohibitions. Discretion is then vested in the sentencing Judge. The standard of review is abuse of discretion, and we review to determine whether the reasons given adequately support the decision. State v. Scott, 72 Wash. App. 207, 213, 866 P.2d 1258 (1993), aff'd sub nom. State v. Ritchie, 126 Wash. 2d 388, 894 P.2d 1308 (1995).
A sentencing court abuses its discretion if crime-related prohibitions are vague or overbroad. State v. Barclay, 51 Wash. App. 404, 753 P.2d 1015, review denied, 111 Wash. 2d 1010 (1988). Prohibiting Mr. Jolstead from accepting a job where he would be required to handle money is clearly crime related. Mr. Jolstead argues that the prohibition is too general and not sufficiently related to his crime. We disagree. Mr. Jolstead not only stole from his employer, he retained a key and continued to steal even after he was fired. The sentencing court's prohibition is then based on reasonable grounds. Mr. Jolstead's motivation in stealing stemmed from the emotional and financial strain following the breakup of his marriage and related financial obligations for child support. There is no showing here that those financial pressures are absent.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.