State Of Washington, Respondent V. Ian D. Clark, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED COURT OF DIVISION II 2014 NY - 6 Al Y 3: 32 STATE OF WASf- MGTOl IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE ovF G_ ON T TPUT DIVISION II No. 45263 -4 -II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION IAN D. CLARK, Appellant. MAxA, J. Ian D. Clark appeals the trial court' s order imposing a community custody condition prohibiting Clark from frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. The State concedes that this condition should be stricken from Clark' s judgment and sentence. We accept the State' s concession and we strike from Clark' s judgment and sentence the community custody condition prohibiting him from frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. We remand for correction of the judgment. FACTS Clark dropped a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue as he was walking away from police dropped, officer Daniel Patton. a witness observed charged with the Although Patton did not remember from where the pipe pipe fall out of the left pocket of Clark' and convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. s jacket. Clark was At sentencing, the trial court imposed a condition of community custody that prohibited Clark from going into bars, taverns, lounges, or other places whose primary business is the sale of liquor. Clark appeals. 45263 -4 -II ANALYSIS Clark appeals his sentence by challenging that the trial court acted without authority in ordering him not to frequent places whose primary business is the sale of liquor, and the State We conclude that the trial court did not have such authority and remand for concedes. resentencing. A sentencing court has discretionary authority to impose crime -related prohibitions under the terms of community custody. involves " has been related prohibition is one that RCW 9. 94A. 703( 3)( f). A crime - conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender convicted." RCW 9. 94A. 030( 10). We have recognized that a trial court has authority to prohibit consumption of alcohol as a condition of community custody, regardless of the offense. State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 206, 76 P. 3d 258 ( 2003). However, community custody provisions prohibiting purchase and possession of alcohol are invalid where alcohol did not contribute to the offense. State v. McKee, 141 Wn. App. 22, 34, 167 P. 3d 575 ( 2007). Here, the trial court at sentencing found that Clark had a chemical dependency that contributed to the offense. However, the trial court did not find that Clark suffered from alcohol dependency or that frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor contributed to the offense. Therefore, the trial court lacked the statutory authority to impose the condition at issue. We accept the State' s concession, and order that the community custody condition prohibiting Clark from frequenting places whose primary business is the sale of liquor be stricken from Clark' s judgment and sentence. We remand for correction of the judgment. 2 45263 -4 -II A majority of the panel having determined that ,this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur: 3
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.
