State of Washington, Respondent v. Colby Jared Smithingell, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 59711-0-II
Respondent,
v.
COLBY JARED SMITHINGELL, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
CRUSER, C.J.—Colby Jared Smithingell was convicted of first degree robbery after he
robbed a Subway sandwich shop with an apparent weapon. In addition to his sentence, the trial
court imposed a lifetime no-contact order with the Subway store clerk and a 5-year ban from
Subway establishments. Smithingell appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by
imposing community custody conditions that exceeded the duration of his community custody
term.
We conclude that the trial court did not err because these conditions were crime-related
prohibitions that did not exceed the maximum sentence for Smithingell’s first degree robbery
conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
February 3, 2026

No. 59711-0-II
2
FACTS
A jury convicted Colby Jared Smithingell of first degree robbery following an incident in
which Smithingell robbed a Subway sandwich shop with an apparent weapon.
At sentencing, the State recommended a mid-range sentence and that the court impose a
no-contact order between Smithingell and the Subway store clerk for life and a lifetime ban from
entering any Subway establishment. Smithingell requested a sentence at the low end of the
sentence range, agreed that a no-contact order with the store clerk was appropriate, but contended
that a lifetime ban from any Subway was not appropriate. The trial court imposed a mid-range
sentence and the required 18 months of community custody. The trial court also ordered lifetime
no contact with the store clerk and a five-year ban from Subway. Smithingell appeals his sentence,
arguing that the trial court erred by imposing community custody conditions that exceed the term
of community custody.
ANALYSIS
Smithingell contends that the trial court erred by imposing community custody conditions
that exceeded the length of the community custody term. Specifically, Smithingell argues that the
trial court erred by ordering Smithingell to have no contact with the store clerk for life and banning
him from Subway shops for five years because these conditions exceed the length of Smithingell’s
18-month term of community custody. The State contends that the trial court was authorized to
impose these conditions as crime-related prohibitions for up to the statutory maximum sentence
for the crime under RCW 9.94A.505(9). We agree with the State.
Generally, we review the trial court’s imposition of crime-related prohibitions for abuse of
discretion. State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 110, 156 P.3d 201 (2007). However, we review

No. 59711-0-II
3
the legal issue of whether a trial court has exceeded its authority under the SRA de novo. Id.
Accordingly, we consider whether the trial court exceeded its authority under the SRA by imposing
crime-related prohibitions that exceed the term of community custody de novo.
Smithingell contends that the trial court did not have authority to impose a ban or no-
contact order that exceeded the length of the community custody term because the orders were not
domestic violence protection orders. But our supreme court has held that, under RCW
9.94A.505(9), the trial court has authority to impose crime-related prohibitions for up to the
statutory maximum of the defendant’s crime. Id. at 118-19 (interpreting former RCW 9.94.505(8)
which later became (9), LAWS OF 2019, ch. 191, § 3). RCW 9.94A.505(9) does not limit this
discretion to only crimes involving domestic violence. A “ ‘[c]rime-related prohibition’ ” is
defined as “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).
The orders prohibiting Smithingell from having contact with the store clerk and Subway
establishments directly relate to Smithingell’s robbery conviction. Therefore, they are crime-
related prohibitions that may be imposed for up to the statutory maximum sentence for first degree
robbery. The maximum sentence for fist degree robbery is life imprisonment. RCW 9A.56.200(2);
RCW 9A.20.021(1)(a). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by imposing a lifetime no-contact
order and 5-year ban from Subway establishments as crime-related prohibitions.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court did not err by imposing a lifetime no-contact order with
the store clerk and 5-year ban from Subway establishments as crime-related prohibitions.
Accordingly, we affirm Smithingell’s sentence.

No. 59711-0-II
4
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.
CRUSER, C.J.
We concur:
VELJACIC, J.
PRICE, J.