Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

			

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                        DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                             Respondent,                         No.  41110-5-II

       v.                                                  UNPUBLISHED OPINION

CRAIG DONALD OLSON,
                             Appellant.

       Van Deren, J.  --  Craig Olson appeals from the trial court's revocation of his special 

sexual offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA)1 sentence.  He argues:  (1) the trial court erred in 

not holding annual review hearings under RCW 9.94A.670(8)(b); (2) the trial court violated 

Olson's due process rights by failing to set a treatment termination hearing at sentencing; and (3) 

the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his SSOSA sentence.  We affirm.

                                            FACTS

       On July 19, 2005, the State charged Olson with one count of second degree attempted 

rape of a child and two counts of possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit 

conduct, all committed on or about March 23, 2005.  Olson pleaded guilty to all three counts.  

Consistent with his plea agreement, on August 30, 2005, the trial court sentenced him under 

1 RCW 9.94A.670. 

No.  41110-5-II

SSOSA to a suspended sentence of 93.75 months to life and 3 years of sex offender treatment, 

but it did not set a treatment termination hearing for "three months prior to [the] anticipated date 

for completion of treatment."  Former RCW 9.94A.670(6) (2004).

       Olson's community custody conditions required:  (1) successful completion of a sex 

offender treatment program; (2) remaining within geographic boundaries determined by Olson's 

community corrections officer (CCO); (3) compliance with any conditions imposed by the 

Department of Corrections (DOC) during his community custody; (4) completion of a 

psychosexual evaluation and satisfactory participation in any recommended treatment and 

compliance with all rules of treatment; (5) advance approval of residence locations; and (6) no 

possession or consumption of alcohol.  DOC notified him that he had to obtain advance 

permission from his CCO before staying overnight somewhere other than his registered address or 

before leaving Washington.  

       In September 2005, Olson began sex offender treatment with Jeanglee Tracer, a 

psychosexual therapist.  Tracer submitted a number of quarterly reports on Olson's progress in 

treatment to the trial court.  Her December 2008 report stated, "[W]hile there have been no 

reports of any violations of [Olson's] treatment and probation expectations, he has done little to 

change the circumstances of his life that he has identified as contributing factors to his offensive 

behaviors [and u]nless he actually grasps the concepts being taught in therapy, he is merely going 

through the motions." Ex. 3 (Dec. 15, 2008) at 2-3.  Her March 2009 report stated, "[Olson] has 

never been interested in making the life changes necessary to ensure he will not fall into the same 

patterns that resulted in hi[s] offending in the first place." Ex. 3 (Mar. 11, 2009) at 3.  Her 

November 2009 report stated, "[Olson] is more interested in merely 'jumping through the 

                                               2 

No.  41110-5-II

hoops' to get [a relapse prevention plan] done so that he can be released from treatment rather 

than actually benefitting from his work. . . . . Clearly[,] . . . Olson is not the least bit invested in 

therapy and merely wants to do what is required so that he can be released from treatment." Ex. 

3 (Nov. 1, 2009) at 2-3.  

       But later in her February 22 and May 31, 2010, reports, Tracer indicated that Olson's 

demeanor had significantly changed, that he had become invested in his treatment, and that she 

was reducing his weekly therapy attendance requirements.  She also scheduled a polygraph 

examination because, at the time, she felt "[h]e was one report away from being [recommended 

to] be released from treatment," and she needed the polygraph "before [she] did [her] final report 

to find out that he was compliant." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 25.  

       On June 9, 2010, a polygraph examination revealed that Olson was deceptive when he said 

he had not consumed alcohol since his last examination and used alcohol only for cooking.  His 

CCO informed him that using alcohol in that form was a violation of his community custody 

conditions, gave him a verbal reprimand, and required him to write a one page report on the 

negative effects of alcohol.  

       Olson then failed to attend his group therapy treatment for two weeks.  When he returned 

to therapy on June 22, he revealed that over the previous 8 months he had cooked with wine on 

approximately 30 occasions and that he drank one-half ounce of wine approximately 7 or 8 times 

due to stress over finances, even though he had indicated on a check-in sheet at each therapy 

session that he had not consumed alcohol.  

       According to Tracer, financial stress was a trigger for Olson's offense cycle.  Because 

Olson was deceptive on a polygraph examination at this late stage of treatment and because he 

                                               3 

No.  41110-5-II

appeared to have been in his offense cycle for "quite some time" and had resorted to consuming 

alcohol instead of using skills identified in his relapse prevention plan in order to cope with stress, 

Tracer felt that Olson's recent progress was a "façade."  Clerk's Papers (CP) at 50.  She felt that 

he was no longer amenable to treatment in the community and that he was at risk of reoffending.  

Thus, she terminated Olson from treatment on June 22 and notified his CCO of his treatment's 

termination on June 24.  

       On June 23, Olson stayed overnight at a motel in Moses Lake instead of at his registered 

address.  On June 24, he stayed overnight at a hotel in Missoula, Montana.  One June 25, his 

CCO arrested Olson after he reported in person at the CCO's request.  

       The State moved to revoke Olson's SSOSA, alleging:  (1) he consumed alcohol no fewer 

than seven times since October 2009; (2) he was terminated from sex offender treatment; (3) he 

failed to obtain permission from his CCO before staying at an address other than his registered 

address on June 23 and June 24; and (4) he failed to obtain written permission from his CCO 

before leaving Washington on June 24.  

       Tracer and Olson's CCO testified at the SSOSA revocation hearing.  The trial court 

observed that the "bottom line" was that Olson failed to successfully complete his sex offender 

treatment; he engaged in deception during treatment; he failed to abstain from alcohol use; he 

chose to "get out of Dodge" and stayed at hotels overnight, and he left Washington after being 

expelled from sex offender treatment.  RP at 52-54.  The trial court revoked Olson's SSOSA and 

reinstated his formerly suspended sentence.  He appeals.  

                                               4 

No.  41110-5-II

                                          ANALYSIS

I.     Annual Review Hearing 

       Olson argues that the trial court erred in not holding annual review hearings on his 

progress in treatment as required under RCW 9.94A.670(8)(b).  Although RCW 9.94A.670(8)(b) 

currently provides, "The court shall conduct a hearing on the offender's progress in treatment at 

least once a year," it is not applicable to Olson's case.  We apply the law in effect at the time the 

crime was committed.  RCW 9.94A.345; State v. Schmidt, 143 Wn.2d 658, 673-74, 23 P.3d 462 

(2001). Here, Olson committed his crimes on March 23, 2005.  The statute in effect at that time 

did not contain a provision requiring annual review hearings.  Former RCW 9.94A.670; Laws of 

2004, ch. 38, §§ 9, 15.  Thus, the trial court did not err in failing to hold annual review hearings

under the applicable statute and Olson's claim fails. 

II.    Due Process 

       Olson also contends that, at sentencing in 2005, the trial court violated his due process 

rights by not setting a treatment termination hearing date that was three months before his 

anticipated treatment completion.2 But an appeal related to his sentence had to be filed within 30 

days after its entry in 2005.  RAP 5.2(a)(1).  Because he failed to timely appeal the judgment and 

sentence that did not provide a treatment termination hearing, we do not further consider his 

challenge.  

2 He argues that, had the sentencing court done so, he would have successfully completed his 
treatment in 2008 and would have been released from the treatment condition.  But in 2008, his 
treatment provider was reporting that Olson was not fully engaged in the treatment and was 
merely going through the motions.  Similar reports continued from the treatment provider until 
2010.  
                                               5 

No.  41110-5-II

III.   SSOSA Sentence Revocation

       Finally, Olson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his SSOSA and 

reinstating his suspended sentence.  A trial court may revoke a SSOSA sentence "at any time if 

there is sufficient proof to reasonably satisfy the court that the offender has violated a condition of 

the suspended sentence or failed to make satisfactory progress in treatment."  State v. 

McCormick, 166 Wn.2d 689, 705, 213 P.3d 32 (2009).  

       We review a SSOSA sentence revocation for abuse of discretion.  McCormick, 166 

Wn.2d at 705-06.  A trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on unreasonable or 

untenable grounds.  State v. Rafay, 167 Wn.2d 644, 655, 222 P.3d 86 (2009). 

       Here, Olson's sentencing conditions included the requirements that he:  (1) successfully 

complete a sex offender treatment program; (2) remain within geographic boundaries determined 

by his CCO; (3) comply with any conditions imposed by DOC during his community custody; (4) 

obtain a psychosexual evaluation and "satisfactorily participate in any recommended treatment 

and comply with all rules of treatment"; (5) obtain advance approval of residence locations; and 

(6) not possess or consume alcohol.  CP at 37.  Olson violated the first and fourth conditions 

when Tracer expelled him from her treatment program.  Likewise, his CCO required him to obtain 

advance permission before staying overnight somewhere other than at his registered address and 

before leaving Washington.  Thus, he violated the second, third, and fifth conditions when he 

stayed overnight in Moses Lake and in Missoula, Montana.  Finally, he repeatedly violated the 

sixth condition when he consumed alcohol.  Accordingly, the trial court 

                                               6 

No.  41110-5-II

did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Olson's SSOSA sentence, and his claim fails.  

       A majorityof the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is 

so ordered.

                                                 Van Deren, J.
We concur:

Worswick, A.C.J.

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

                                               7