State v. Valencia

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a preenforcement vagueness challenge to a community custody condition barring possession of 'any paraphernalia' usable for controlled substances is ripe for review on direct appeal, that sentencing conditions carry no presumption of constitutionality and are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and that the condition is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment and article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution because it fails to give fair warning and invites arbitrary enforcement. The court disapproved State v. Motter to the extent of conflict and declared that Riles' contrary presumption statement as applied to sentencing conditions was error. It reversed the Court of Appeals, struck the condition, and remanded for resentencing. Justice J.M. Johnson concurred, agreeing the condition was vague but opining that the sentencing court could cure the defect on remand by substituting 'drug paraphernalia' as defined in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.