Opinion
No. 51150-5-I.
Filed: March 1, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 01-1-08795-5. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 08/23/2002. Judge signing: Hon. Phillip Hubbard.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Christopher Gibson, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), E Bradford Bales, King Co Pros Aty Ofc, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104-2390.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Lonnie Cantrell contends that the sentencing court exceeded its authority when it imposed future counseling costs for victims as a condition of community custody. But the record establishes that the sentencing court imposed no such condition. Accordingly, we affirm Cantrell's sentence for first degree child molestation.
In March 2002, appellant Cantrell pleaded guilty to one count of first degree child molestation. The sentencing court imposed a term of 51 months to life. Appendix H of the judgment and sentence included 24 conditions of community custody.
On appeal, Cantrell contends that the trial court exceeded its authority when it ordered, as a condition of community custody, that he `[p]ay for counseling costs for victims and ordered by the court.' (Italics ours.) He argues that the condition amounted to the imposition of restitution without a hearing and without the requisite showing of a causal relationship between the crime charged and the victim's damages. See State v. Woods, 90 Wn. App. 904, 907, 953 P.2d 834 (1998).
But as recorded on the judgment and sentence, the challenged condition actually provided that Cantrell `[p]ay for counseling costs for victims if ordered by the court.' (Italics ours.) The sentencing court did not order the payment of counseling costs, and the judgment and sentence expressly provided that no restitution was ordered. Because it rests on a mischaracterization of the challenged condition, Cantrell's argument fails.
Moreover, even if the challenged condition could be construed as the imposition of future counseling costs, Cantrell's appeal would be premature. A condition of sentence is not ripe for review until the defendant has been harmfully affected by the challenged condition. State v. Massey, 81 Wn. App. 198, 200, 913 P.2d 424 (1996). Cantrell does not allege that any counseling costs have been imposed. Nor is there any indication in the record that such costs might be imposed in the future. Accordingly, the issue is not ripe for review. State v. Phillips, 65 Wn. App. 239, 244, 828 P.2d 42 (1992) (issue of costs is not ripe for review until the State attempts to collect them).
Affirmed.
KENNEDY and COX, JJ., concur.