State Of Washington, Respondent V. Cornelius Darnell Williams, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
CORNELIUS DARNELL WILLIAMS,
Appellant.
No. 68837-5-1
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	m 	2 8 2013
'•j'CZi
—!cr
CO 	>•" -X'
5F 	ni~'
—< 	O-n
"»1
	ro 	T>
CO 	-H "i*
3T»
^-»
CO 	cr> f>5
•" 	—4!—.
CO 	.~> •--
cr
Per Curiam — Cornelius Darnell Williams appeals the sentence imposed
following his conviction for third degree assault. 	He contends, and the State concedes,
that the court erred in imposing a substance abuse evaluation and treatment as a
condition of community custody without first finding that he has chemical dependency
as required by RCW 9.94A.607(1).1 	We accept the r.nnp.ession. See State v. Warnock.
Wn.App. 	, 	P.3d 	(2013) (chemical dependency finding is a statutory
prerequisite to ordering chemical dependency evaluation and treatment); State v.
Jones, 118 Wn.App. 199, 209-10, 76 P.3d 258 (2003) (failure to make statutorily
required finding before ordering mental health treatment and counseling was reversible
error even though record contained substantial evidence supporting such a finding).
The parties disagree, however, as to the appropriate remedy for the court's error.
Williams contends the trial court must strike the condition because there is insufficient
evidence in the record to support a finding of chemical dependency. The State
1 RCW 9.94A.607(1) provides:
Where the court finds that the offender has a chemical dependency that has contributed
to his or her offense, the court may, as a condition ofthe sentence and subject to available
resources, order the offender to participate in rehabilitative programs or otherwise to perform
affirmative conduct reasonably related tothe circumstances of the crime for which the offender
has been convicted and reasonably necessary or beneficial to the offender and the community in
rehabilitating the offender.

No. 68837-5-1/2
contends it should be permitted to present new evidence on remand because Williams
did not object to the condition below. 	We conclude that the challenged evaluation and
treatment condition must be stricken on remand unless the court determines "that it can
presently and lawfully comply" with the statutory requirement for a finding that Williams
has a chemical dependency that contributed to his offense. See Jones. 118 Wn.App. at
212 n. 33.
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
For the court: 	\^0 XaV-^)J) oL	^/
]<&SArJi 	ux