State v. Bahl

Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington held that a defendant may raise a preenforcement vagueness challenge to conditions of community custody for the first time on appeal when the challenge is sufficiently ripe. The court concluded that several conditions restricting access to pornographic and sexually stimulating materials were unconstitutionally vague and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. A defendant may raise a vagueness challenge to community-custody conditions for the first time on appeal because an illegal or erroneous sentence may be challenged for the first time on appeal.
2. A defendant may assert a preenforcement vagueness challenge to sentencing conditions if the challenge is sufficiently ripe.
3. A community-custody condition is unconstitutionally vague if it fails either to provide ordinary people fair notice of the prohibited conduct or to provide sufficiently ascertainable standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
4. The condition prohibiting Bahl from possessing or accessing pornographic materials, as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, is unconstitutionally vague.
5. The condition prohibiting Bahl from frequenting establishments whose primary business pertains to sexually explicit or erotic material is not unconstitutionally vague.
6. The condition prohibiting possession or control of sexual-stimulus material for Bahl's particular deviancy, as defined by the supervising officer and therapist, is unconstitutionally vague.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant may raise a vagueness challenge to community-custody sentencing conditions for the first time on appeal.
2. Whether a defendant may bring a preenforcement vagueness challenge to community-custody conditions before being accused of violating them.
3. Whether the conditions prohibiting access to or possession of pornographic materials, frequenting establishments involving sexually explicit or erotic material, and possession or control of sexual-stimulus material for a particular deviancy are unconstitutionally vague.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded