Nancy P. Collins, Washington Appellate Project, Susan F. Wilk, Law Office of Michael Iaria, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
Eric Michael Ohme, Island Co Prosecuting Atty, Attorney at Law, Coupeville, WA, for Respondent.
¶ 1 Christopher Miller appeals the revocation of the special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) of his suspended sentence. The trial court revoked this SSOSA because Miller failed to commence sexual deviancy treatment within 90 days of his release from confinement, as required by his sentence. Miller claims this revocation violated his due process and equal protection rights. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking this SSOA, we affirm.
¶ 2 In 2010, Miller pleaded guilty to one count of first degree rape of a child. As a first-time offender, he submitted to a forensic psychological evaluation to determine his suitability for a SSOSA.
¶ 3 In 2011, without objection from the State, the sentencing court granted Miller a SSOSA and ordered 12 months of confinement with 93 months to life suspended. One of the SSOSA conditions was that Miller commence sexual deviancy treatment " within 90 days from the Defendant's release from jail." When the trial court granted the SSOSA, it made clear that Miller was responsible for paying for this treatment.
¶ 4 In January 2012, Miller was released from jail. Approximately a week later, the State informed the court that he did not have a stable residence. Miller told his correctional officer that he thought that he was going to be able to live with his father. But the mobile home park that his father lived in would not accept him as a resident. The trial court found no violation of any SSOSA
condition at that point, but it ordered Miller to check in daily with his correctional officer.
¶ 5 A month later, the State moved to revoke Miller's SSOSA. Miller's correctional officer reported that Miller checked in with her daily and had applied for benefits. But she also testified that Miller continued to not have a stable residence and that he did not have enough money to pay for sexual deviancy treatment. The trial court granted Miller 30 days to show compliance with the SSOSA condition for treatment.
¶ 6 The State renewed its motion to revoke the SSOSA. In May 2012, the trial court heard testimony from Miller, his correctional officer, and the jail transition coordinator. At the end of the hearing, the trial court gave its oral ruling. It revoked Miller's SSOSA and imposed 93 months of confinement because he was not then in sexual deviancy treatment, as the sentence required.
¶ 7 The trial court later entered its written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that Miller did not have the financial resources to commence treatment at the mandated level. It also found that he would not have the resources to commence treatment within a reasonable amount of time.
¶ 8 The court did not make any determination whether the failure to comply with the sentencing condition was willful.
¶ 9 Miller appeals.
REVOCATION OF SSOSA
¶ 10 Miller argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his SSOSA, violating his rights to due process and equal protection. We disagree.
¶ 11 " A SSOSA sentence may be revoked at any time if there is sufficient proof to reasonably satisfy the court that the offender has violated a condition of the suspended sentence or failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment." 
¶ 12 " Revocation of a suspended sentence due to violations rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."  " An abuse of discretion occurs only when the decision of the court is ‘ manifestly unreasonable, ...