State of Washington v. Steven Bernard Pallett

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
STEVEN BERNARD PALLETT,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 36592-1-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, C.J. — Steven Pallett appeals a community custody condition, imposed
in connection with his conviction for first degree rape. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Mr. Pallett of first degree rape after he forced a woman to
perform a sex act at gunpoint. Both Mr. Pallett and the woman had been expecting to
exchange sex for money, but Mr. Pallett refused to make payment.
At sentencing, Mr. Pallett received a minimum sentence of 168 months’
confinement and a maximum of life. The court also imposed community custody. One of
the community custody conditions required that Mr. Pallett “not engage in the business of
FILED
JULY 7, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 36592-1-III
State v. Pallett
2
prostitution.” Clerk’s Papers at 410. Mr. Pallett did not object to the wording or relevance
of this condition. He now appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Pallett challenges his community custody condition prohibiting engaging in
the business of prostitution. He makes two arguments: (1) the condition is not crime
related and (2) it is unconstitutionally vague. Because Mr. Pallett did not object to the
condition at the time of sentencing, our review is limited to the constitutional vagueness
challenge. RAP 2.5(a); State v. Peters, 10 Wn. App. 2d 574, 581-82, 586-87, 455 P.3d
141 (2019).
A community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague if it is unreasonably
imprecise or susceptible to arbitrary enforcement. Peters, 10 Wn. App. 2d at 586. “The
doctrine of unconstitutional vagueness is concerned with inherently hazy or variable . . .
terms.” State v. Evans, 177 Wn.2d 186, 206, 298 P.3d 724 (2013). Community custody
conditions must be sufficiently clear to inform a person of ordinary intelligence what he
or she cannot do. State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 679, 425 P.3d 847 (2018).
Here, there is no impermissible ambiguity. The concept of illegal “prostitution” is
defined with precision under Washington law. RCW 9A.88.030(1) (“A person is guilty of
prostitution if such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with

No. 36592-1-111
State v. Pallett
another person in return for a fee."). 1 In addition, the term "business" connotes a
commercial activity engaged in over a period of time. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 302 (1993). Given these two definitions, the community
custody condition broadly prohibits Mr. Pallett from participating in activities focused on
exchanging money for sexual conduct. This would include promoting, soliciting or
working as a prostitute. The condition withstands Mr. Pallett's vagueness challenge.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
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.
Pennell, C.J.
WE CONCUR:
Siddoway, J. 	Fearing, J.
1 "Sexual conduct" is defined as "sexual intercourse" or "sexual contact" as set
forth by RCW 9A.44.010(1)-(2). RCW 9A.88.030(2).
3