State of Washington v. Oscar Alvarez Del Castillo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 17, 2012 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 29362-9-III ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, v. OSCAR ALVAREZ DEL CASTILLO, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION Korsmo, C.J. This appeal challenges two conditions of Mr. Oscar Alvarez Del Castillo s judgment and sentence. We agree with the parties that one of the conditions must be modified, but otherwise affirm. FACTS Mr. Castillo was convicted at a stipulated facts trial of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and of being an alien in possession of a firearm without an alien firearm license. The court imposed a standard range sentence that included 12 months of community custody. No. 29362-9-III State v. Castillo The terms of the community custody included a requirement that Mr. Castillo undergo an alcohol/substance abuse evaluation and participate in recommended treatment within 60 days of being released from confinement. The judgment also directed that he comply with any additional conditions imposed by DOC [Department of Corrections]. Clerk s Papers at 146. Mr. Castillo timely appealed to this court. ANALYSIS Mr. Castillo challenges the alcohol evaluation (and treatment) on the basis that it is not a crime-related prohibition. He also contends that the trial court improperly delegated authority to DOC. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, empowers trial courts to impose crime-related prohibitions during the course of community custody. RCW 9.94A.505(8). A crime-related prohibition is an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted. RCW 9.94A.030(10). Crime-related prohibitions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). Discretion is abused when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). 2 No. 29362-9-III State v. Castillo Mr. Castillo argues that alcohol had no part in his offenses and cannot be considered a crime-related prohibition. The prosecutor agrees and even notes that the trial court declined to prohibit Mr. Castillo from possessing alcohol. Both parties therefore ask that the word alcohol be stricken from the condition requiring evaluation and treatment. Because most substance abuse treatment programs address multiple substances and often include poly-substance treatment, we doubt the trial court was specifically targeting alcohol abuse in this case. Nonetheless, for clarity s sake, we agree with the parties that the word alcohol should be stricken from the noted sentence condition. Mr. Castillo also argues that the trial court lacked authority to empower the DOC to impose conditions of community custody, citing to State v. Sansone, 127 Wn. App. 630, 111 P.3d 1251 (2005). He correctly points out that judges cannot delegate core sentencing functions. Id. at 642; State v. Williams, 97 Wn. App. 257, 264, 983 P.2d 687 (1999). However, Mr. Castillo s situation is not governed by those cases. In 2008 the legislature gave statutory authority to DOC to independently require someone under its supervision to undergo rehabilitative treatment and otherwise comply with directives of the agency. See RCW 9.94A.704. Mr. Castillo committed these crimes in 2010 and is 3 No. 29362-9-III State v. Castillo subject to DOC s enhanced statutory authority. There is no question of unauthorized delegation of authority. We reject Mr. Castillo s delegation argument and affirm the convictions. The case is remanded to clarify that he need not undergo an alcohol evaluation or alcohol treatment. Remanded. A majority of the panel has determined 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. _________________________________ Korsmo, C.J. WE CONCUR: ______________________________ Brown, J. ______________________________ Siddoway, J. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
