BECKER, J.
Carey Hickman challenges his conviction for first degree assault, arguing for the first time on appeal that the State elicited improper opinion testimony from an emergency room doctor. In the alternative, he contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to object to the doctor's testimony. He also challenges a community custody condition as not reasonably related to the circumstances of the crime. Because Hickman fails to establish any error in the admission of the doctor's testimony, we affirm the conviction. However, we accept the State's concession regarding the condition of community custody and remand for the trial court to strike the condition.
FACTS
On the evening of May 30, 2009, Michael Imeson called 911 to report what he believed to be an assault occurring in an apartment above his own. Imeson reported loud crashing sounds, a male's voice swearing, and the sound of flesh hitting flesh, like a slapping noise. Police responding to the call heard a man shouting and swearing in a second floor apartment. When police knocked on the door, a man with blood on his face, shoulder, and hand opened the door briefly and then slammed it shut and locked it.
When police forced their way into the apartment, they found 69-year-old Thomas Vinson with severe bruising and swelling to his face, gasping for air and bleeding from his face and mouth. The officers observed pools of blood on the carpet, blood on the kitchen counter and closet door, and blood spatter on the walls. An officer used a stun gun to subdue Carey Hickman, the man who had first appeared at the door and then attempted to prevent the police from entering the apartment. Hickman told the officers that Vinson had been drinking and had fallen repeatedly and injured himself on the coffee table. According to the officers, Hickman could not explain the shouted profanity and threats, his failure to cooperate with police, or how Vinson sustained his extensive injuries.
The State charged Hickman with first degree assault. At trial, the State presented the testimony of police officers, firefighters, doctors, Vinson, Vinson's neighbors, and bar tenders from a nearby pub.
Dr. David Carlbom testified that he treated Vinson in the emergency room and described his observations of Vinson's injuries and test results. Vinson was unconscious while in the emergency room and unable to communicate because the paramedics had placed a breathing tube in his airway and administered a sedative. Dr. Carlbom testified that Vinson had multiple abrasions and contusions, black eyes, and a laceration on his lip. Based on x rays and a CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan, Dr. Carlbom determined that Vinson had fractures in his facial bones, specifically, "a left medial and inferior orbital floor fracture," and a fracture to "a very thin, small bone in the nose deep inside that's called the lamina papyracea." On direct examination, the following occurred:
Q. In your capacity as an emergency room doctor, have you treated or seen many patients with broken bones?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea how many?
A. I see about 20 to 25 patients every eight-hour shift. I work seven shifts a month right now. So 1,800 to 2,000 patients, maybe half of them have broken bones. So maybe a thousand patients a year with broken bones.
Q. This fracture that he had, is that commonly referred to as an orbital blowout?
A. Yes. So an orbital floor fracture is also known as an orbital blowout fracture.
Q. Why is that?
A. There's two ways to fracture the orbital floor. A more common — probably the most common way is to have a direct injury to the eye. The eyeball being fluid filled, it expands as it's compressed from the front either with an object — or you may have heard this in baseball. This is very common if someone is hit in the eye with a baseball. The globe expands and then fractures the bone as it expands. I think that's where the slang term blowout comes from.
Q. I assume some of those patients that you've seen in the ER have been assaulted or alleged to have been assaulted?
A. Yes. Orbital blowout fractures, we see them most commonly with motor vehicle collisions where the patient's head strikes something in the car. But the second most common cause is assault.
Q. What about just falling? Is this a common injury for falling?
A. It's not a common injury. If you review the literature, it happens uncommonly maybe six percent of the time in several large case series. I've actually never seen it from a fall myself.
Q. In your opinion is it likely or unlikely or something else that Mr. Vinson's injuries were caused from a fall?
A. The fracture — the orbital blowout fracture, the multiple contusions around his body would be unusual to be seen with a fall.
Q. Let me ask you about — you sort of referenced a baseball. Can you say in your professional opinion whether his injuries were caused from one blow or impact of some kind or multiple blows or impacts? Is it possible to say that?
A. Certainly the fracture and the left eye bruising could be caused by one blow. But it doesn't make sense to me that a single blow could cause bruising on the left side of his face and on his right shoulder and on his abdomen and on the right side of his face and neck.
Q. Let me ask, are his injuries consistent with an assault?
A. Yes.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dr. Carlbom whether he could determine how Vinson sustained his fractures. The doctor testified that the two broken bones are anatomically distinct, but he "would assume" that the fractures were caused by "the same energy that was delivered to [Vinson's] face." When defense counsel asked Dr. Carlbom what could cause the kind of abrasions and contusions he observed around Vinson's left eye, the following exchange occurred:
A. Usually it's some sort of blunt force directed at the skin with a shearing force. So blunt force for contusion and some sort of shearing that creates the scrape or abrasion.
Q. So, in other words, as opposed to a direct blow, whether hitting an object and stomping, or a fist as might be speculated here on the eye, this would be something that scrapes against?
A. I think both direct blow but some component of shearing. So it could be from — I can't even speculate what caused it. But some object struck his forehead with direct and shearing forces. Or his forehead struck some object.
Q. So it could be either way? Something strikes it or it strikes something?
A. Correct. Although the multiple lesions would be unusual for a single striking. For example, if he fell, it would be unusual to have multiple hits without multiple falls.
The jury found Hickman guilty as charged, and the trial court imposed a standard range sentence. Hickman appeals.
ANALYSIS
Hickman contends that Dr. Carlbom's testimony about the cause of Vinson's facial injuries was an improper opinion on guilt. But Hickman did not object to the testimony at trial. The admission of witness opinion testimony, without objection, is not automatically reviewable as a "manifest" constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a)(3). State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 936, 155 P.3d 125 (2007). Hickman must identify "an explicit or almost explicit witness statement on an ultimate issue of fact" to invoke the narrow manifest error exception. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d at 936. And "manifest" under RAP 2.5(a)(3) requires a plausible showing "that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case." State v. Lynn, 67 Wn. App. 339, 345, 835 P.2d 251 (1992).
A witness may not testify to his or her opinion as to the guilt of the defendant, but testimony based on inferences from the evidence that is not a direct comment on guilt, and is otherwise helpful to the jury, is not improper opinion testimony. City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573, 577-78, 854 P.2d 658 (1993), review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1011 (1994). An expert's opinion based solely upon inferences from the physical evidence and the expert's experience, and not based upon the credibility of the defendant or other witnesses, does not constitute an impermissible opinion on guilt. State v. Baird, 83 Wn. App. 477, 486, 922 P.2d 157 (1996) (doctors' testimony that victim's injuries appeared to be deliberately inflicted were permissible opinions because they "did not rely upon a judgment about the defendant's credibility, but rested upon their experience and training and treatment of" the victim's injuries), review denied, 131 Wn.2d 1012 (1997); Heatley, 70 Wn. App. at 577, 579 (officer's opinion that defendant was "obviously intoxicated" and "could not drive a motor vehicle in a safe manner" did not constitute an opinion on guilt and was properly admitted as it "was based solely on his experience and his observation of Heatley's physical appearance and performance on the field sobriety tests").
Relying on State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 183 P.3d 267 (2008), and State v. Hudson, 150 Wn. App. 646, 208 P.3d 1236 (2009), Hickman argues that Dr. Carlbom's testimony constituted an improper opinion on guilt because he used the term "assault" to describe the typical cause of injuries such as those Vinson suffered. He claims that the doctor's reference to the crime charged in the context of this trial constituted an opinion that Hickman assaulted Vinson. His reliance is misplaced. In Montgomery, police officers and a forensic chemist made direct and explicit expressions of personal belief as to the defendant's possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in conclusory terms parroting the legal standard. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d at 594. Hudson involved a rape charge in which it was undisputed that the victim's injuries were caused by a sexual encounter with the defendant and the only issue for trial was whether the victim had consented. Hudson, 150 Wn. App. at 655. In this context, admission of explicit opinion testimony from two nurses that the victim's injuries were caused by nonconsensual sex was improper because their sole reason for believing that the victim had not consented "was that the sex must have been extremely painful," that is, reasoning not based on the medical evidence or their medical training and experience. Hudson, 150 Wn. App. at 654-55.
Here, Dr. Carlbom testified only about the physical evidence and his professional experience. He did not express a personal belief regarding Hickman's guilt or credibility. He agreed that Vinson's injuries were consistent with assault but did not rule out the possibility that Vinson could have been injured in a fall or multiple falls. He was not asked to comment on any particular factual scenario, and he stated during cross-examination that he couldn't "even speculate what caused" Vinson's particular injuries. Because Dr. Carlbom's testimony was not improper, Hickman cannot establish a manifest error of constitutional magnitude.
Similarly, Hickman fails to establish his alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to Dr. Carlbom's testimony. To prove ineffective assistance, Hickman must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). Legitimate trial tactics or strategy cannot be the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v. Alvarado, 89 Wn. App. 543, 553, 949 P.2d 831 (defense attorney's decision not to object to admission of damaging evidence was not deficient performance because evidence was admissible), review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1014 (1998).
Hickman claims that defense counsel could have no reason not to object to Dr. Carlbom's testimony. But there was nothing improper in Dr. Carlbom's direct testimony and any objection would likely have been overruled by the trial court. Moreover, counsel elicited favorable testimony from Dr. Carlbom during cross-examination. In particular, Dr. Carlbom testified that he did not know what caused Vinson's injuries and that Vinson could have been injured when his forehead struck some object. Dr. Carlbom also agreed to the possibility that Vinson's injuries could have resulted from a single fall and suggested that multiple falls would better explain his multiple injuries. This testimony was consistent with the defense theory that Vinson was injured when he repeatedly fell while drunk. Under these circumstances, Hickman cannot demonstrate deficient performance.
Finally, Hickman contends that the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering him to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and complete treatment as a condition of community custody despite the lack of evidence that drugs or alcohol contributed to the crime. See State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199, 76 P.3d 258 (2003) (alcohol counseling is only reasonably related to the crime, and therefore authorized by statute, if the evidence shows that alcohol contributed to the offense). The State concedes that the trial court exceeded its authority because there was no evidence that drugs or alcohol played a significant role in Hickman's offense. We accept the State's concession and remand for the trial court to strike the drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment condition from the judgment and sentence.
Affirmed in part and remanded.