frxiJEV IN CLERKS OFFICE X This opinion was fiied for record 8UPRBE COURT.SBOE OF VWaWOTOM at 5<^on 9^1f U m7^_§§P_2j_j|g I (-^IZZL(Xr'IX '-TOJWK Susan L. Carlson CMIEFJUSTKE Supreme Court Clark IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 96313-4 Petitioner, V. EN BANC FRANK A. WALLMULLER, Filed SEP 2 li >(IHI Respondent. STEPHENS, J.—^The Court of Appeals held that a community custody condition barring a defendant from "places where children congregate" is inherently vague,in violation ofdue process, unless it is cabined by an exclusive list ofspecific prohibited places. We hold that this was error. While an illustrative list ofprohibited places serves to clarify and define such a condition, crafting an exclusive list is neither constitutionally required nor practically possible. We reverse the Court of Appeals and uphold the challenged condition. State V. Wallmuller, 96313-4 FACTS Frank Wallmuller pleaded guilty in 2014 to first degree rape of a child and sexual exploitation of a minor. He successfully appealed on grounds of sentencing error and imposition of improper community custody conditions, and the Court of Appeals remanded for correction of those errors. State v. Wallmuller, No. 46460-8-II, slip op. at 4-5 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015)(unpublished), http:// www.courts.wa.gOv/opinions/pdfiD2%2046460-8-II%20Unpublished%200pinion. pdf. On remand,the trial court struck the challenged community custody conditions, which related to pornography and businesses selling liquor,^ but reimposed three of the original conditions relating to contact with children. Those conditions read: (15) The defendant shall not have contact with minor children under the age of 18 years unless in the presence of a responsible adult who is capable of protecting the child and is aware of the conviction, and contact has been approved by the Community Corrections Officer and the sexual offender's treatment therapist in advance; (16) The defendant shall not participate in youth programs, to include, but not limited to, sports programs, scouting programs, and school programs; (17) The defendant shall not loiter in nor frequent places where children congregate such as parks, video arcades, campgrounds, and shopping malls. ^ The Court of Appeals held these conditions were insufficiently crime related in violation ofthe Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, ch. 9.94A RCW. Wallmuller, No.46460- 8-II, slip op. at 4-5. -2- State V. Wallmuller, 96313-4 Clerk's Papers at 25 (boldface omitted). Wallmuller did not object to any of these conditions at the resentencing hearing. On appeal, however, he challenged the condition in paragraph 17 on the ground that it is unconstitutionally vague. A divided Court of Appeals agreed and remanded for the trial court to vacate or modify the condition. State v. Wallmuller,4 Wn. App. 2d 698, 703-04,423 P.3d 282 (2018). The majority reasoned that the phrase "places where children congregate" is vague because it gives rise to several questions: (1)Must the ehildren join together in a formal group to "eongregate," or is it sufficient that ehildren be at the same place even ifthey are unconnected? (2) Similarly, must the ehildren intend to join together with other children to "eongregate," or can they end up ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals