FILED: October 7, 1998
STATE OF OREGON,
Respondent,
v.
MARVIN CLINTON MACK, JR.,
Appellant.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County.
Robert Morgan, Judge.
Submitted on record and briefs June 30, 1998.
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
EDMONDS, J.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
EDMONDS, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of convictions for assault in the third
degree and criminal mistreatment in the first degree of his three-year-old son. The trial
court sentenced defendant under the sentencing guidelines to 36 months probation for
both convictions, to be served concurrently. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's
imposition of a sex offender package as a special condition of probation. We remand to
the trial court for resentencing.
By the time of trial, the charges against defendant were: (1) unlawful sexual
penetration in the first degree, ORS 163.411;(1) (2) assault in the third degree, ORS
163.165;(2) and (3) criminal mistreatment in the first degree,
ORS 163.205.(3)
A jury found
defendant guilty of assault and criminal mistreatment but not guilty of unlawful sexual
penetration. During the sentencing proceeding, the trial court stated:
" Well, I do recall the case very well. I do feel, based upon the
evidence, that this was criminal behavior. I think the jury's finding of guilty
on these two counts, basically count II and count III, was something that I
do agree with.
"I would note for the record the wording of count II and count III,
which are well-known to everyone. Based upon that fact, and based upon
my own recollection of the evidence, I do find that there was a sexual
component to this behavior, these actions by * * * the defendant, in this
case.
"Obviously assault III and criminal [mistreatment] in the first degree
does not, per se, mean that someone committed a sexual offense; however,
taking into account the totality of these facts, including the wording of the
indictment that the jury was asked to pass on up or down, and based upon
my recollection of the facts, I do find that this was a sexual crime."
The court imposed a sex offender package as a special condition of
probation, which requires:
"1. Defendant shall have no contact with any female/male under the age
of 18, until authorized by probation officer.
"2. Defendant shall consent to and cooperate with polygraphic
examinations and penile plethysmographic assessments when
deemed necessary by therapists and/or probation officer.
"3. Defendant shall be financially responsible for all counseling costs
incurred by the victim(s).
"4. Defendant shall consent to the sharing of privileged assessment and
treatment information between public and private agencies, agents,
and persons who are deemed essential in assessing, monitoring, and
mediating treatment for sexual deviancy problems.
"5. Defendant shall not possess at any time any type of pornography
including written, pictures, video tapes, or audio tapes.
"6. Defendant shall enter and complete a sexual offender treatment
program as directed by probation officer.
"7. Defendant shall consent to, and cooperate with, any plan deemed
necessary by probation officer and/or therapists to maintain and
monitor offense-free behavior for the duration of the probation.
"8. Defendant shall not be involved in any organizations which would
place him in direct contact with children, i.e. Boy Scouts, Girl
Scouts, 4-H, Big Brother or Big Sister programs, Sunday School
teaching, etc.
"9. Defendant shall not frequent or visit places that exist primarily for
the enjoyment of children, i.e. circuses, playgrounds, arcades,
amusement parks, zoos, etc.
"10. Defendant shall register as a sex offender pursuant to Oregon
Revised Statutes.
"11 Defendant shall submit to blood testing for DNA purposes.
"12. Defendant shall submit to HIV testing with release of information to
the victim."
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed the
sex offender package as a special condition of probation because he was not found guilty
of a sexual offense. The state argues that imposition of the sex offender package as a
special condition of probation was properly within the discretion of the trial court
because the trial court found that there was a sexual component to the convictions.(4)
A trial court has discretion to impose special conditions of probation "for
the protection of the public or reformation of the offender, or both." ORS 137.540(2).(5)
However, the imposition of special conditions must be "reasonably related to the crime of
conviction or the needs of the defendant." Id. A trial court must establish a factual
record to support its imposition of a special condition of probation under ORS
137.540(2). State v. Saxon, 131 Or App 662, 664, 886 P2d 505 (1994). That record may
be established by the evidence at trial. State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 589, 580 P2d 536
(1978). It can also be established at the sentencing hearing. State v. Estey, 121 Or App
251, 253, 855 P2d 186 (1993).
In imposing the sex offender package as a special condition of probation,
the trial court found that the assault and the criminal mistreatment had a sexual
component by purporting to rely on the nature of the crimes charged in the indictment
and the evidence at trial. Our review of the evidence reveals no evidence that relates
directly to the question whether defendant acted with a sexual purpose. The evidence
demonstrates that the victim suffered bruising around his anus and a small anal tear.
There is considerable evidence that defendant inflicted those injuries, although he denied
acting for a sexual purpose. He told a police officer that he was angry at his former wife,
the child's mother, and that the injury occurred during a diaper change. The physician
who examined the victim testified that her findings were "consistent with blunt force
trauma or penetration" and "consistent with physical or sexual abuse." However, she
could not testify with certainty that the victim suffered penetration. Also, during the
sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor asked the court to consider that "it appears
[defendant] was on probation for about three to four weeks for a prostitution conviction
out of Multnomah County at the time the offenses in this case occurred."
The legislature has classified certain crimes under the heading of "Sexual
Offenses."(6) If a defendant is convicted of one of these offenses and sentenced to
probation, imposition of a sex offender package as a special condition of probation is
reasonably related to the offense because the individual conditions within the package,
such as treatment and registration, prevent recidivism of a sexual nature. If a defendant is
convicted of a crime other than a sexual offense but acted with a sexual purpose,
imposition of a sex offender package as a special condition of probation also could be
reasonably related to the conviction.
Here, defendant was not convicted of committing a crime that in and of
itself is considered a sexual offense. Thus, the trial court had to find that defendant acted
with a sexual purpose before it could impose a sex offender package as a condition of
probation in this case. Otherwise, the imposition of the sex offender package as a
condition of probation would not be reasonably related to the crimes of conviction.
Although the trial court was not required to believe defendant's version of how the injury
occurred, there must be some evidence from which a reasonable inference arises that he
acted with a sexual purpose. Defendant's prior conviction for prostitution, which is not
included for these purposes among sexual offenses, and the trial court's reliance on the
fact that defendant had inflicted injury to an intimate part of the victim's body under the
circumstances of this case are not enough without additional evidence to demonstrate that
he acted with a sexual purpose. Consequently, the trial court has not established the
necessary factual record to support the imposition of a sex offender package as a
condition of probation. Therefore, we remand the case for resentencing under ORS
138.222(5). In the event that the trial court chooses on remand to impose the sex
offender package, it must make the necessary findings to support that imposition.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
1. ORS 163.411(1) provides, in part:
"[A] person commits the crime of unlawful sexual
penetration in the first degree if the person
penetrates the * * * anus * * * of another with any
object other than the penis or mouth of the actor and:
" * * * * *
"(b) The victim is under 12 years of age[.]"
Because the statute does not prescribe a culpable mental state,
it can be "established only if a person acts intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence." ORS
161.115(2). The jury was instructed that defendant must have
knowingly committed the act. ORS 163.411 does not require that
the actor act with a sexual purpose.
Return to previous location.
2. ORS 163.165(1) provides, in part:
"A person commits the crime of assault in the
third degree if the person:
" * * * * *
"(h) Being at least 18 years of age, intentionally
or knowingly causes physical injury to a child 10 years
of age or younger."
Return to previous location.
3. ORS 163.205 provides, in part:
"(1) A person commits the crime of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if:
" * * * * *
"(b) The person * * * having assumed the permanent or temporary care, custody or responsibility for the supervision of a dependent person or elderly person, intentionally or knowingly:
" (A) Causes physical injury or injuries to the dependent person or elderly person[.]
" * * * * *
"(2) As used in this section:
"(a) 'Dependent person' means a person who because of * * * age * * * is dependent upon another to provide for the person's physical needs."
Return to previous location.
4. ORS 138.222 limits the scope of appellate review of certain felony sentences. In State v. Jackson, 141 Or App 123, 125 n 1, 917 P2d 34 (1996), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of a condition of probation. We rejected an argument by the state that a special condition of probation is part of a presumptive sentence such that we are precluded from reviewing it under ORS 138.222(2)(a) and reviewed the condition under ORS 138.222(4)(a). Id. Here, the state does not argue that defendant's sentence is not reviewable. Thus, we assume without deciding that we may review a special condition of probation under ORS 138.222(4)(a) when the claim is that the sentencing court failed to comply with the requirements of law in imposing it.
Return to previous location.
5. ORS 137.540(2) provides, in part:
"In addition to the general conditions, the court may impose any special conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the defendant for the protection of the public or reformation of the offender, or both * * *[.]"
Return to previous location.
6. In the Oregon Revised Statutes, the following crimes are included within the section entitled "Sexual Offenses": (1) rape, ORS 163.355-.375; (2) sodomy, ORS 163.385-.405; (3) unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.408-.411; (4) sexual abuse, ORS 163.415-.427; (5) contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor, ORS 163.435; (6) sexual misconduct, ORS 163.445; and (7) public indecency, ORS 163.465.
Return to previous location.
|
|

|
Created 10/07/98 Web authoring by Print Services |