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. Casimiro

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3

April 2, 2019

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
SCOTT ALEXIS CASIMIRO, Appellant.

          Korsmo, J.

         Scott 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.

         FACTS

         Mr. 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. Casimiro.

         The 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.

         Mr. Casimiro then timely appealed to this court. A panel considered his appeal without hearing argument.

         ANALYSIS

         This 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 that order.

         Community Custody Conditions

         Mr. 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.[1]

         Appellate 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).

         Whether a sentence condition is related to the circumstances of a crime is an inherently factual question.[2] 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.[3] 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 conditions.

         We 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.

         The 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 ...


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.