Opinion
No. 60128-8-I.
April 28, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 07-8-00410-8, Anthony P. Wartnik, J., entered May 16, 2007.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
B.B. challenges the court's community supervision requirement that he complete a drug and alcohol evaluation at his juvenile probation counselor's request. Because the record contains no basis for a condition related to drug and alcohol treatment, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
BACKGROUND
While walking home after spending the night at her friend's house, fifteen-year-old S.M. met her sixteen-year-old boyfriend, B.B. The boyfriend angrily demanded to know where S.M. had been, and the two argued. During the disagreement, B.B. blocked S.M.'s path, slapped her twice, pushed her, and picked S.M. up over his shoulder to carry her into his house. S.M., struggling to get down, grabbed a fence post and scratched her wrist. Once she broke away from B.B.'s grasp, S.M. went back to her friend's house and her friend's father drove her home. S.M.'s mother took her to the police department to report the incident.
The juvenile court found B.B. guilty of fourth degree assault, and sentenced him to eight months of community supervision and 24 hours of community service. As conditions of supervision, the judge prohibited B.B. from using or possessing any illegal substances, and ordered him to "submit to random urinalysis at the direction of your juvenile probation officer" and to "obtain a drug/alcohol evaluation and follow treatment recommendations if directed to do so by your juvenile probation officer." Report of Proceedings (May 16, 2007) at 76-77.
B.B. appeals.
ANALYSIS
B.B. contends the court exceeded its statutory sentencing authority by requiring him to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation if his probation counselor requests one. Relying on State v. H.E.J., 102 Wn. App. 84, 9 P.3d 835 (2000), B.B. argues that the conditions of community supervision must be connected to the offense.
A court's sentencing authority is limited to that granted by statute. State v. Skillman, 60 Wn. App. 837, 838, 809 P.2d 756 (1991). RCW 13.40.0357 authorizes the court to impose up to 12 months of community supervision on juveniles convicted of fourth degree assault. "The juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion an individualized rehabilitative disposition that includes a broad range of community supervision conditions." State v. D.H., 102 Wn. App. 620, 629, 9 P.3d 253 (2000). We review juvenile dispositions for abuse of discretion. State v. Roberson, 118 Wn. App. 151, 162, 74 P.3d 1208 (2003).
The standard range for fourth degree assault committed by a juvenile is "local sanctions," which may consist of one or more of the following: 0 to 30 days of confinement; 0 to 12 months community supervision; 0 to 150 hours of community restitution, and a $0 to $500 fine. RCW 13.40.020(16), .0357.
Community supervision is "an individualized program comprised of one or more of the following: (a) Community-based sanctions; (b) Community-based rehabilitation; (c) Monitoring and reporting requirements; (d) Posting of a probation bond." RCW 13.40.020(4).
"Community-based rehabilitation" is defined as:
Employment; attendance of information classes; literacy classes; counseling, outpatient substance abuse treatment programs, outpatient mental health programs, anger management classes, education or outpatient treatment programs to prevent animal cruelty, or other services; or attendance at school or other educational programs appropriate for the juvenile as determined by the school district.
Monitoring and reporting requirements are broadly defined to include:
Curfews; requirements to remain at home, school, work, or court-ordered treatment programs during specified hours; restrictions from leaving or entering specified geographical areas; requirements to report to the probation officer as directed and to remain under the probation officer's supervision; and other conditions or limitations as the court may require which may not include confinement.
In the adult context, community supervision conditions must be crime-related. RCW 9.94A.120(20). But the goals of the juvenile sentencing system differ from those of the adult criminal system. State v. J.S., 70 Wn. App. 659, 664, 855 P.2d 280 (1993) ("`because the juvenile system focuses on twin goals of punishment and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, it differs materially from the adult sentencing system in which punishment is the primary purpose'") (quoting State v. Rice, 98 Wn.2d 384, 392-93, 655 P.2d 1145 (1982)). Juvenile courts may design a specialized program for juvenile offenders based on their individual needs. See State v. J.H., 96 Wn. App. 167, 180-81, 978 P.2d 1121. They have broad discretion to tailor dispositions to meet the needs of juveniles and the rehabilitative and accountability goals of the juvenile code. H.E.J., 102 Wn. App. at 87 (quoting J.H., 96 Wn. App. at 181). While juvenile offender community supervision conditions need not be crime-related, the record must establish the need for the condition.
In this case, the disposition ordered a "[d]rug/alcohol information/evaluation to be completed if requested by [the juvenile probation counselor]." Clerk's Papers at 9. An evaluation is an "appraisal," not monitoring or reporting. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 786 (1993). It is a necessary precursor to treatment and thus falls under the definition of "community-based rehabilitation." The record provides no basis for such a requirement here.
We reverse and remand for vacation of the condition.