Casimiro appeals various sentencing conditions imposed
following his guilty plea to second degree child rape. We
primarily affirm, although we remand for the trial court to
modify three conditions.
Casimiro entered his plea and sought a special sexual
offender sentencing alternative sentence (SSOSA). An
evaluation was obtained and a presentence interview (PSI) was
conducted by the Department of Corrections. The PSI
documented a history of drug and alcohol abuse by Mr.
trial court declined to impose the SSOSA sentence and imposed
an indeterminate sentence pursuant to RCW 9.94A.507, followed
by community custody for the rest of his life. Clerk's
Papers (CP) at 56-57. Part of that sentence includes 28
conditions of community custody found in Appendix F to the
judgment. CP at 65-67. When asked if he objected to any
conditions found in Appendix F, defense counsel took a moment
to review the appendix, indicated he was familiar with the
conditions, and advised the court that "we are not
objecting to these." Report of Proceedings at 15.
Casimiro then timely appealed to this court. A panel
considered his appeal without hearing argument.
appeal raises numerous challenges to the conditions of
community custody, the time for reporting upon release, and
one of his financial obligations. We address the arguments in
Casimiro takes a scattershot approach, arguing that 11 of the
conditions are either not crime-related or are vague, despite
telling the trial judge that he had no objection to those
conditions. Given the circumstances, we will take limited
review of his arguments.
review normally does not extend to arguments not raised in
the trial court. RAP 2.5(a). Courts, however, have
discretionary authority to consider issues of manifest
constitutional error that were not raised in the trial court,
provided that an adequate record exists to consider the
claim. RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d
322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). Washington courts also will
consider some sentencing errors that are raised for the first
time on appeal, including some claims challenging conditions
of community custody. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739,
744, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). But, courts need not consider
claims of constitutional error that were invited or waived.
E.g., State v. Studd, 137 Wn.2d 533,
545-49, 973 P.2d 1049 (1999) (invited error); State v.
Mierz, 127 Wn.2d 460, 468, 901 P.2d 286 (1995) (waived).
a sentence condition is related to the circumstances of a
crime is an inherently factual question. Given Mr.
Casimiro's agreement to the conditions, there was no
reason for the trial court or the parties to explain the
relationship between the crime and the subsequent
conditions. For that reason, we decline to consider
Mr. Casimiro's arguments that some conditions are not
crime-related. He had the opportunity to raise that
contention in the trial court and, instead, agreed to the
will, however, consider contentions that solely present
questions of law. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 744. Some of
the conditions Mr. Casimiro challenges also have been the
subject of recent litigation. Accordingly, we will summarily
address several of the challenged conditions; those not
addressed are affirmed without discussion.
bulk of Mr. Casimiro's remaining legal challenges involve
vagueness concerns for several of the community custody
conditions. A provision is unconstitutionally vague if either
a reasonable person would not understand what conduct is
prohibited or if it lacks ...