State Of Washington, Respondent V. John Marvin Bill, Appellant

2Q160CT-3 	m 9^9
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Respondent,
v.
JOHN MARVIN BILL,
Appellant.
No. 73653-1-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: October 3, 2016
Appelwick, 	J. 	— 	Bill 	appeals 	the 	community 	custody 	portion 	of 	his
sentence for first degree child molestation. 	He challenges three conditions of
community 	custody, 	arguing 	that they are 	unauthorized 	or 	unconstitutionally
vague. 	We accept the State's concession that two conditions are vague and
must be stricken or clarified. 	We affirm in part and remand in part.
FACTS
Based on allegations that John Bill molested a young boy while swimming
with family members at a 	lake, 	the State charged him with first degree child
molestation. 	A jury convicted him as charged. 	The court sentenced Bill to 60
months to life in confinement and a lifetime term of community custody. 	The
community custody conditions included the following:
4. 	Do not initiate or prolong contact with minor children without
the presence of an adult who is knowledgeable of the offense

No. 73653-1-1/2
and 	has 	been 	approved 	by 	the 	supervising 	Community
Corrections Officer.
5. 	Do not seek employment or volunteer positions, which place
you in contact with or control over minor children.
6. 	Do 	not frequent 	areas 	where 	minor children 	are 	known 	to
congregate, 	as 	defined 	by 	the 	supervising 	Community
Corrections Officer.
11. Hold employment only in a position where you always receive
direct supervision.
19. Based on eligibility, enter and successfully complete identified
interventions to assist you to improve your skills, relationships,
and ability to stay crime free.
Bill appeals.
DISCUSSION
A community custody condition is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to
provide ordinary people fair warning of proscribed conduct or allows for arbitrary
enforcement. 	State v. Irwin. 191 Wn. App. 644, 652-53, 364 P.3d 830 (2015).
Bill 	contends 	conditions 6 	and 	19 	are 	unconstitutionally vague. 	The 	State
concedes that condition 6 is vague under our decision in Irwin. 	191 Wn. App. at
652, 655 (striking condition stating, "Do not frequent areas where minor children
are known to congregate, as defined by the supervising [community corrections
officer]" as void for vagueness). 	We accept the State's concession and strike
condition 6 as unconstitutionally vague.

No. 73653-1-1/3
Condition 	19, 	which 	requires 	Bill 	to 	"successfully 	complete 	identified
interventions," is also unconstitutionally vague. 	Bill correctly points out, and the
State concedes, that the court failed to identify either the "interventions" or the
person or entity who would identify them. 	As written, this condition is subject to
arbitrary enforcement and is unconstitutionally vague. 	See jcL at 654. We accept
the State's concession of error and strike condition 19.1
Bill also challenges condition 11, which requires him to "[h]old employment
only in a position where you always receive direct supervision." 	He claims this
condition is not authorized by statute and that no evidence links the condition to
the circumstances of his offense. We disagree.
A sentencing court has authority to impose crime-related prohibitions or
affirmative conditions 	as 	part 	of 	an 	offender's 	community 	custody. 	RCW
9.94A.505(9); .703(3) (c)-(d), (f); see also RCW 9.94A.607 (1). A "crime-related
prohibition" is one that "directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for
which the offender has been convicted." 	RCW 9.94A.030(10). 	Courts also have
authority to impose conditions that ensure compliance with other conditions of
community custody. 	See State v. Vant, 145 Wn. App. 592, 604, 186 P.3d 1149
(2008); State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 342-43, 351-52, 957 P.2d 655 (1988),
abrogated on other grounds by State v. Valencia. 169 Wn.2d 782, 239 P.3d 1059
(2010); RCW 9.94A.030(10) ("[Ajffirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance
1We express no opinion regarding the State's contention that conditions 6
and 19 could be redrafted to pass constitutional muster.

No. 73653-1-1/4
with the order of a court may be required by the department."). 	Community
custody conditions are within the court's discretion and will be reversed only if
manifestly unreasonable. Valencia. 169 Wn.2d at 791-92.
Here, the trial court imposed a number of conditions designed to prevent
Bill from having unsupervised contact with minors. 	Conditions 4 and 5, which are
unchallenged, prohibit Bill from initiating or prolonging contact with minor children
without the presence of an adult and from seeking employment that places him in
contact 	with 	minor 	children. 	Condition 	11 	ensures 	compliance 	with 	these
unchallenged conditions. 	It is therefore authorized by the authorities cited above.
It is also authorized by statute because it is crime related. 	RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f).
Bill's offense occurred in public and in the presence of members of his extended
family. 	Because 	the 	molestation was 	not 	limited 	to 	private locations and
occurred in the presence of others, supervision at Bill's place of employment is
related to, and warranted by, the circumstances of his offense.
Affirmed in part and remanded in part for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
WE CONCUR:
w^^^>J»