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. Houck

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

August 6, 2019

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY GLEN HOUCK, Appellant.

          CRUSER J.

         Anthony Houck appeals the trial court's imposition of two community custody conditions and certain legal financial obligations (LFOs) following his convictions for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Houck argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a condition of community custody that prohibited him from associating with known drug users and sellers and erred by imposing a condition of community custody that prohibited possession or consumption of medical marijuana under the Medical Use of Cannabis Act, ch. 69.51A RCW. Houck also challenges the trial court's imposition of LFOs and interest provision.

         We hold that the trial court's imposition of community custody conditions was proper, but that the $200 criminal filing fee and interest provision must be stricken. We also hold that the State bears the burden of demonstrating that Houck's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has not previously been collected and remand for the trial court to consider whether the DNA collection fee should be imposed. Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.

         FACTS

         A jury convicted Anthony Houck of unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court sentenced Houck to a term of confinement and community custody. The trial court imposed the following relevant community custody conditions:

(B) While on community placement or community custody, the defendant shall: . . . (4) not consume controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully issued prescriptions; . . . .
. . . .
[x] have no contact with known drug users/sellers except in [treatment] setting.

Clerk's Papers (CP) at 152.

         As a part of Houck's sentence, the trial court ordered Houck to pay the $500 crime victim penalty assessment, $200 criminal filing fee, and $100 DNA collection fee. The trial court waived interest on all fees until 90 days following his release from custody.

         Houck appeals the trial court's imposition of the aforementioned community custody conditions, the criminal filing fee, the DNA collection fee, and the interest provision.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Community Custody Conditions

         Houck challenges the community custody conditions prohibiting him from association with known drug users and sellers and prohibiting him from consuming controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully issued prescriptions. Houck argues that the condition prohibiting association with known drug users and sellers is unconstitutionally vague. He further argues that the trial court did not have lawful authority to impose the condition prohibiting him from consuming controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully issued prescriptions because the condition subjects him to criminal sanctions if he possesses or consumes marijuana for medical purposes in violation of the Medical Use of Cannabis Act. We disagree.

         A. Legal Principles

         When a prison term is imposed for a felony drug offense, a sentencing court must impose an additional term of community custody. RCW 9.94A.701(3)(c).[1] "Washington sentencing courts are required to impose certain community custody conditions in specified circumstances and may impose others." State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 744, 193 P.3d 678 (2008); RCW 9.94A.703.

         RCW 9.94A.703 prescribes community custody conditions that are mandatory, waivable, or discretionary. A court may impose a condition requiring an offender to refrain from direct or indirect contact with a specified class of individuals. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(b). Unless specifically waived by the court, the court must order an offender to refrain from possessing or consuming controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully issued prescriptions as part of any term of community custody. RCW 9.94A.703(2)(c).

         B. Association With Known Drug Users and Sellers

         Houck argues that the community custody condition barring him from associating with known drug users and sellers is unconstitutionally vague.

         1. Standard of Review and Principles of Law

         The due process vagueness doctrine requires that citizens have fair warning of proscribed behavior. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Wash. Const. art. I, § 3; Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 752. A community custody condition that does not provide fair warning is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 753. A community custody condition does not provide fair warning if (1) "it does not sufficiently define the proscribed conduct so an ordinary person can understand the prohibition" or (2) "it does not provide sufficiently ...


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.