Citations and pincites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON , Respondent , v.
DOUGLAS WAMBA , Appellant. No. 78823

- 0

- I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

L EACH , J.

— Douglas Wamba appeals his convictions for varying degrees of child rape and child molest ation of his two stepdaughters. We affirm his

convictions but remand to strike the community custody condition prohibiting him from searching the internet without permission , and s trike the interest accrual on unpaid le gal financial obligations

. BACKGROUND Douglas Wamba’s two stepdaughters , S.L. and O.L. , accused Wamba of raping and molesting them several times. The State charged Wamba with multiple counts of child rape and child molestation. The jury convicted Wamba of nine counts of varying degrees of child rape and child molestation. Wamba appeals. Additional facts related to the issues Wamba raises are
set forth in the discussion of th at issue.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 2

2 ANALYSIS Wamba claims the prosecutorial conduct denied him a fair trial. He also challenges a communit y custody provision limiting access to the internet and a sentence provision imposing interest on unpaid financial obligation s. Wamba
received a fair trial, but his challenges to the sentence have merit.

Prosecutorial Misconduct Wamba claims the prosecutor acted improperly during closing arguments by commenting on evidence that the court did n ot admit for the truth of the

statement ’s content and by commenting on the victims ’ credibility.
This court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under an abuse of

discretion standard. 1 We evaluate the propriety of the prosecutor's conduct and

whether any improper conduct prejudiced a defendant by reviewing a prosecutor's challenged statements in the context of the entire case. 2 To show prejudice, a defendant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the prosecutor's
misconduct affected the outcome of the trial. 3 Whe n a defendant fails to object to the challenged condu ct, the defendant must show the conduct was so flagrant and

ill

- intentioned that a jury instruction could not have cured any resulting prejudice. 4 A prosecutor's misconduct may deny a defendant his or h er constitutional right to a fair trial

. 5

1 State v. Ish , 170 Wn.2d 189, 195

– 96, 241 P.3d 389 (2010)

. 2 State v. Thorgerson , 172 Wn.2d 438, 442

– 43, 258 P.3d 43 (2011)

. 3 In re Glasmann , 175 Wn.2d 696, 704, 286 P.3d 673 (2012)

. 4 Thorgerson , 172 Wn.2d at 443 (quoting State v. Russell , 125 Wn.2d 24, 86, 882 P.2d 747 (1994) ). 5 Glasmann , 175 Wn.2d at 703

– 04

.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 3

3 During closing arguments, the prosecutor referred to a text message that S.L. sent to her mother discussing Wamba’s molestation of her: We have the message that a 12

- year - old [S.L.] sent her mother on December the 4th of 2014 that was subsequently forwarded from Kelly to the defendant. And this is one of several poignant moments in this case, when you look at the evidence, the way she desc ribed it, what she was concerned about. DJ touched me inappropriate three times since the last time it was a dream, in quotes. I’m uncomfortable to be around him, knowing that he’s touched me there. I get really nervous around him. I don’t like to be alon e with him. The reason it’s happened so many times is because he didn’t want me telling you and because I’m so nervous to tell him to stop. I like when he gives me back massages but he just goes too far. I don’t like it. Never have. Never will. It’s just s o irritat ing. I’m 12. This is a 12

- year - old, describing being molested and raped by her stepfather.
Wamba did not object.
The text message the prosecutor described was introduced through testimony from S.L.’s mother, Kelly. T he court instructed the jury it was not to consider the text as proof of the truth of its contents. T he prosecutor did not refer to S.L.’s text message for the truth of the m atter asserted, but to show that Wamba had a pattern of trying t o exert control over the victims. So , Wamba fails to show that the prosecutor made any improper argument about the text message

. Wamba next claims the prosecutor impermissibly commented on the

victim s’ credibility. A prosecutor commits misconduct by personally vouching for a witness's credibility or veracity

. 6 “ Improper vouching generally occurs (1) if the prosecutor expresses his or her personal belief as to the veracity of the witness or (2) if the prosecutor indicates that evidence not presented at trial supports the

6 Ish , 170 Wn.2d at 196

.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 4

4 witness's testimony.” 7 Wamba alleges these comments improperly vouched for the victims’ veracity :
[S.L] also, to a certain extent, not as marked as [O. L.] And before I move on, just a caution about that. And I don’t even know if this is something I need to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. Please be careful in using your own preconceptions or assumptions about how someone should or would react to trauma

. And I don’t know if you came into this experience with an idea in mind of how you think someone who had been raped or molested would react, how you think they would talk about it, how you think they would appear on the stand. There was some discussion abo ut that jury selection [sic] way back three weeks ago when we were talking about what do you do when you are assessing testimony from somebody you don’t know, and some of your fellow prospective jurors reasonably said, well, I would pay attention to body l anguage and how they react. And those are fair observations to make. But be real careful that you’re not using your own preconceptions or your own notions about how you think someone should act or should react in assessing the testimony from the witnesses in this case

. The prosecutor’s comments , of telling the jurors to be careful of their preconceptions or assumptions about how someone should react to trauma , do es

not express belief about the vera city of the victims or indicat e that evidence not
presente d supports either victim ’ s testimon y . So, the prosecutor did not comment improperly. Wamba has not shown any prosecutorial misconduct. Community Custody

Wamba next claims the community custody condition barring him from

7 Ish , 170 Wn.2d at 196.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 5

5 access to the internet vi olates his constitutional right because it is unconstitutionally vague. He also claims the condition exceeds the trial court’s sentencing authority because it is not crime related. Because the State fails to persuade us , that the condition is crime related, we do not reach Wamba’s constitutional argument.
At sentencing, the court imposed the following condition of community custody:
Do not access the Internet on any computer, phone, or computer

related device with access to the Internet or on

- line computer ser vice except as necessary for employment purposes (including job searches) in any location, unless such access is approved in advance by the supervising Community Corrections Officer and your treatment provider. The CCO is permitted to make random searches of any computer, phone, or computer

- related device to which the defendant has access to monitor compliance with this this condition. The State agree s this condition must be crime related to survive Wamba’s challenge. 8 We note the trial court did not make any finding that thi s condition was

crime related. In State v. O'Cain , the court struck a condition prohibiting O'Cain from unapproved Internet access : 9

There is no evidence in the record that the condition in this case is crime related. There is no evidence that O'Cain accessed the Internet before the rape or that Internet use contributed in any way to the crime. This is not a case where a defendant used the Internet to contact and lure a victim into an ill egal sexual encounter. The trial court made no finding that Internet use contributed to the rape. [ 10 ]

8 RCW 9.9A703(3)(f). 9 144 Wn. App. 772, 774

- 75, 184 P.3d 1262

. 10 O’Cain , 144 Wn. App. at 775.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 6

6 Similarly as here, the record contains no evidence that Wamba’s criminal

conduct was related to his use of the I nternet. The State claims the use of internet

contributed to his crimes because he talked to t he mother through text messages and showed the victims inappropriate photos. The State does not explain how phone texting or photos on a cell phone equate to internet use. Because none of

the event s it relies on is specific to internet use, we remand to strike this community

condition because it is not crime

- related.
Legal Financial Obligations
Wamba challenges a provision providing for the accrual of interest o n unpaid legal financial obligations (LFOs). Because the State concedes that this provision should be stricken , and since the law requires it, 11 we remand to strike
the interest accrual on the LFOs.
Statement of Additional Grounds

Wamba claims , in his statement of additional grounds , that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to examine the analyst , Tracy Youmans , who helped officers extract information from his cellphone

. We
review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. 12 To establish such a claim, Wamba must show (1) defense counsel’s conduct was deficient, i.e., that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced him: that there is a reasonable possibility that , but for
counsel’s def icient performance, the outcome of his trial would have been

11 State v. Ramirez , 1 91 Wn.2d 732, 747, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). 12 In re Brett , 142 Wn.2d 868, 873, 16 P.3d 601 (2001)

.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 7

7 different. 13 Our scrutiny of defense counsel’s performance is highly deferential, and we employ a strong presumption of reasonableness. 14 “To rebut this presumption, the defendant bears the burden of establishin g the absence of any

‘ conceivable legitimate tactic exp laining counsel's performance.’” 15 Failure to satisfy either prong of the test defeats an ineffective assistance of counsel clai m. 16 Wamba states his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call

Youman s as a witness

. But , he fails to establish the absence of any conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's performance. First, Detective Steve Paxton
testified fo r the State regarding Youman s ’ training and the report about the cellphone information. And , Wamba fails to explain how testimony from Youman s would not have been duplicative. Also, g iven the contents found on his c ellphone,

like text messages, his defense counsel may reasonably have decide d not to
revisit this subject or focus the jury’s attention on the cellphone evidence. Wamba

does not show that his attorney lacked any conceivable legitimate tactic for not calling Youmans

. Wamba next asserts that the State’s failure to call Youmans to testify about

the work she did in pre paring her analysis of the cell phones deprived him of his constitutional right to confront his accuser. Wamba asserts that while the court in

13 State v. Reichenbach , 153 Wn.2d 126, 130, 101 P.3d 80 (2004) (citing State v. Thomas , 109 Wn.2d 222, 225

– 26, 743 P.2d 816 (1987 ) ). 14 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) ; State v. McFarland , 127 Wn.2d 322, 335

- 36, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)

. 15 State v. Grier , 171 Wn.2d 17, 42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011). (2011) (quoting Reichenbach , 153 Wn.2d at 130 ). 16 Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697

.No. 78823

- 0

- I/ 8

8 State v. Lui 17 would “most likely not have considered [Youman s ] a ‘witness’ . . . for confrontation purposes,” her work “created factual information for use by the

inves tigating detective” and later used by the State at trial

. But, the court in Lui

held that only a n an alyst who testifies about facts adverse to a defendant triggers
a confrontation clause issue. 18 Because Youman s only created the report , and
Paxton testified about adverse facts, Wamba ’s argument fails. Also, Wa mba fails to explain how Youman s ’ testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial

. S o , the ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails

. CONCLUSION
We affirm in part and remand with instructions to strike consistent with this opinion

. Wamba does not establish any prosecutorial misconduct. He also does not establish any absence of effective assistance of counsel. So , his challenge s
to his convictions fail

. B ecause the community custody condition about internet

use was unrelated to his crim inal conduct , the condition is invalid

. The condition providing for interest on unpaid legal obligations violates current law. W e affirm

Wamba’s convictions but remand to the trial court to strike the community custody

condition and to strike t he interest accrual on the LFOs.

WE CONCUR:

17 State v. Lui , 179 Wn.2d 457, 315 P.3d 493 (2014). 18 Lui , 179 Wn.2d at 489

- 90.