Find Legal Information

Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

                                                               FILED

                                                          MAY 17, 2012

                                                    In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                  WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                     DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                      No.  29362-9-III
                                                )
                      Respondent,               )
                                                )
         v.                                     )
                                                )
OSCAR ALVAREZ DEL CASTILLO,                     )
                                                )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                      Appellant.                )
                                                )

       Korsmo, C.J.  --  This appeal challenges two conditions of Mr. Oscar Alvarez Del 

Castillo's judgment and sentence.  We agree with the parties that one of the conditions 

must be modified, but otherwise affirm.

                                            FACTS

       Mr. Castillo was convicted at a stipulated facts trial of possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to deliver and of being an alien in possession of a firearm 

without an alien firearm license.  The court imposed a standard range sentence that 

included 12 months of community custody. 

No. 29362-9-III
State v. Castillo

       The terms of the community custody included a requirement that Mr. Castillo 

undergo an alcohol/substance abuse evaluation and participate in recommended treatment 

within 60 days of being released from confinement.  The judgment also directed that he 

comply with "any additional conditions imposed by DOC [Department of Corrections]."  

Clerk's Papers at 146.   

       Mr. Castillo timely appealed to this court.

                                         ANALYSIS

       Mr. Castillo challenges the alcohol evaluation (and treatment) on the basis that it is 

not a crime-related prohibition.  He also contends that the trial court improperly delegated 

authority to DOC.

       The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW, empowers trial courts 

to impose "crime-related prohibitions" during the course of community custody.  RCW 

9.94A.505(8).  A "crime-related prohibition" is "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).  Crime-related prohibitions are reviewed for abuse of 

discretion.  State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993).  Discretion is abused 

when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.  State ex rel. Carroll 

v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). 

                                               2 

No. 29362-9-III
State v. Castillo

       Mr. Castillo argues that alcohol had no part in his offenses and cannot be 

considered a crime-related prohibition.  The prosecutor agrees and even notes that the 

trial court declined to prohibit Mr. Castillo from possessing alcohol.  Both parties 

therefore ask that the word alcohol be stricken from the condition requiring evaluation 

and treatment.

       Because most substance abuse treatment programs address multiple substances and 

often include poly-substance treatment, we doubt the trial court was specifically targeting 

alcohol abuse in this case.  Nonetheless, for clarity's sake, we agree with the parties that 

the word alcohol should be stricken from the noted sentence condition.  

       Mr. Castillo also argues that the trial court lacked authority to empower the DOC 

to impose conditions of community custody, citing to State v. Sansone, 127 Wn. App. 

630, 111 P.3d 1251 (2005).  He correctly points out that judges cannot delegate core 

sentencing functions.  Id. at 642; State v. Williams, 97 Wn. App. 257, 264, 983 P.2d 687 

(1999).

       However, Mr. Castillo's situation is not governed by those cases.  In 2008 the 

legislature gave statutory authority to DOC to independently require someone under its 

supervision to undergo rehabilitative treatment and otherwise comply with directives of 

the agency.  See RCW 9.94A.704. Mr. Castillo committed these crimes in 2010 and is 

                                               3 

No. 29362-9-III
State v. Castillo

subject to DOC's enhanced statutory authority.  There is no question of unauthorized 

delegation of authority.

       We reject Mr. Castillo's delegation argument and affirm the convictions.  The case 

is remanded to clarify that he need not undergo an alcohol evaluation or alcohol 

treatment.

       Remanded.

       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.

                                            _________________________________
                                                           Korsmo, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________
       Brown, J.

______________________________
       Siddoway, J.

                                               4