Court Opinion

ID: 9898429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:30:39.004152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:44.215869
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         JUNE 29, 2023
                                                                 In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                            DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of     )         No. 38697-0-III
                                               )
                                               )
                                               )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JUAN LUNA HUEZO,                               )
                                               )
                     Petitioner.               )

       LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.C.J. — Juan Luna Huezo seeks relief from personal

restraint stemming from his 2018 convictions for one count of rape of a child in the first

degree and two counts of child molestation in the first degree. In this timely petition, Mr.

Luna Huezo argues his convictions should be reversed because improper witness opinions

denied him his right to a jury trial and because the trial court erred by admitting hearsay.

Also, he challenges eight community custody conditions. To the extent Mr. Luna Huezo

seeks a new trial, we deny his petition. But to the extent he seeks relief from some

community custody condition, we grant partial relief.
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

                                         FACTS

       Mr. Luna Huezo was the stepfather of two minor girls, T.O.,1 born in April 2005,

and B.O., born in July 2006. State v. Luna Huezo, No. 36001-6-III, slip op. at 1 (Wash.

Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2020) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/

pdf/360016_unp.pdf. He is more than two decades older than the girls. He began

sexually abusing T.O. when she was nine years old and B.O. when she was eight years

old.

       In 2017, T.O.’s friends saw her crying during class and, after speaking with her,

reported their concerns to their teacher. T.O. and B.O. spoke with a school counselor and

disclosed the sexual abuse. The counselor contacted the Kennewick Police Department

and, the same day, Mauri Murstig, a forensic child interviewer at the Sexual Advocacy

Response Center, interviewed both girls. T.O. described multiple instances of sexual

abuse by Mr. Luna Huezo and details about specific items he used during the abuse—

including duct tape, condoms, oil, and baby wipes, and the location of those items.

       1
         To protect the privacy interests of the child victims, we use their initials
throughout this opinion. Gen. Order 2012-1 of Division III, In re the Use of Initials or
Pseudonyms for Child Victims or Child Witnesses, (Wash. Ct. App. June 18, 2012),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders_orddisp&ordnumber
=2012_001&div=III.

                                             2
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

She also disclosed that Mr. Luna Huezo showed her pornographic videos using his cell

phone and asked her to smile like the women in those videos.

       Later that evening, the police obtained and executed a search warrant at the girls’

home and their aunt’s residence where they found condoms, oil, duct tape, zip ties, baby

wipes, and a zebra blanket. Approximately two weeks later, Dr. Shannon Phipps, a

family practice physician, conducted a sexual assault examination of T.O.

       Procedure

       The State charged Mr. Luna Huezo with one count of rape of a child in the first

degree relating to T.O. and three counts of child molestation in the first degree, with one

count relating to T.O. and two counts relating to B.O. The one count of rape of a child in

the first degree and the first count of child molestation in the first degree alleged

aggravating circumstances of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse and breach of a position

of trust. The second count of child molestation in the first degree alleged the aggravating

circumstance of violation of a position of trust.

       B.O. testified at trial. Her answers were generally nonresponsive or vague

regarding Mr. Luna Huezo’s sexual acts with her, but she indicated he touched her

“private part” under her clothes, with his hand. Rep. of Proc. (No. 36001-6) (RP)

at 229-30. B.O. also testified she saw him touch T.O.’s “private part” underneath her

                                               3
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

clothes. RP at 236. B.O. stated she heard T.O. crying when Mr. Luna Huezo had T.O. in

the bedroom with him.

       T.O. also testified at trial. She testified about several instances in which Mr. Luna

Huezo molested or penetrated her, including instances when he moved his fingers “in”

her vagina and it hurt a little and one instance where he had her kneel and put her mouth

“on” his penis while he was standing. RP at 254, 265.

       T.O. testified Mr. Luna Huezo duct taped her hands together behind her back

during one incident. She testified he would remove a condom from a “gray and blue”

backpack he kept in the bathroom and put it on his “private part.” RP at 263, 262. She

said he would also “rub [oil] over his private part” and, after he finished, he always

cleaned himself with a baby wipe and would throw it in the garbage. RP at 265. T.O.

testified that when she asked him if he was doing the same thing to B.O., he replied yes.

       Dr. Phipps testified about her examination of T.O. She is a family practice

physician with Kadlec Clinics. At that time, she had been performing sexual assault

examinations on young people for more than one year and had conducted approximately

10 to 12 examinations. She conducted the examinations at the request of law

enforcement or the prosecutor’s office. The State questioned Dr. Phipps about her

examination of T.O.:

                                             4
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

             Q       And did you ask [T.O.] why she—for her medical history?
             A       I did.
             Q       And what did she tell you?
                     [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I’m going to
              object to any hearsay evidence.
                     [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, this is pursuant to
              the medical hearsay exception.
                     THE COURT:            I’ll overrule.
              ....
              Q      Okay. So how did you continue your—or the exam with her?
              A      Well, I—after having asked the questions to make her
      comfortable, I asked her if she knew that she was to see me because law
      enforcement had asked her to come in. And she said she was. I then
      rephrased the question and I asked her if she knew why law enforcement
      had asked her to see me. And at that point she did start talking to me about
      her relationship with her stepfather and the behavior that her stepfather had
      done with her, which had led her to talk to her school counselor and inform
      law enforcement and then present to me.
              ....
              Q      So what did she tell you?
              A      She told me that her stepdad, when her mom is at work, will
      take her to his room. This apparently has been ongoing since she was nine,
      she told me. She was able to tell me the age at which it started. So,
      approximately two years.
              ....
              Q      And what did she tell you happened in his room?
              A      She stated to me that he would take off first her clothes and
      then his clothes. And then he would place his private parts—those were her
      exact words—on her private parts.
                     I did ask her to explain this a little bit more, being 11, she
      wasn’t familiar with typical anatomy or names of anatomy. So I did explain
      to her the difference between a vagina and a rectum, because I was trying to
      ascertain, before I did the physical exam, what areas in which injury might
      have occurred.

                                            5
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

                     And so what she told me was that—what she described to me
      was that he would attempt to place his penis in both her vagina and rectum;
      but she said that she was too small.
                     And what I understood from her was that there was more
      touching and not actual penetration, although perhaps some initially
      attempted penetration.
             Q       Did she talk about after that what did she—did you ask her
      about her putting her mouth or his put [sic] his mouth anywhere?
             A       I did ask her that. I asked her if her stepfather had ever had
      her place her mouth on, and I referred it to her in her terminology, his
      private. She shook her head yes. She didn’t make a verbal reply, but she
      did shake her head yes.

RP at 145-49. The prosecutor asked Dr. Phipps if she came to an opinion regarding the

physical state of T.O.’s body following her examination. Dr. Phipps responded:

             I didn’t find any abnormalities, physically, except for the psychiatric
             exam. But due to the fact that it was not an acute exam and healing
             can occur, that was not surprising to me; nor did it negate the history
             for me.
                    But I did think that she was a child who would benefit from
             having some counseling as well, because she was clearly, her affect
             and her mood demonstrated an abnormality that I would have
             considered consistent with some kind of trauma.

RP at 154. The prosecutor questioned Dr. Phipps “because you don’t find any kind of

physical manifestations in her body, does that mean that no sexual abuse occurred?”

RP at 154. Dr. Phipps answered:

             No, it doesn’t. The body is incredible for healing. And I would
             relate this back to the example that I gave between an acute and a
             non-acute visit.

                                            6
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

                     If you’re walking down the street and you twist your knee.
              You might have some swelling initially. If you go immediately for
              something, that might be perceived. Whereas if you wait three or
              four days, the swelling may have resolved, there may not be a
              physical finding yet the injury still occurred, so the body can heal.

RP at 154. Dr. Phipps stated that she would not expect to see tears or lesions in the

vaginal area if a penis rubbed against the area, rather than entered the vagina. Finally,

Dr. Phipps declared that “[i]t’s more typical not to find findings than to find findings” in

sexual assault examinations. RP at 161.2

       Detective Jose Santoy with the Kennewick Police Department also testified. He

testified he observed the forensic interview of the girls conducted by Ms. Murstig from a

separate room behind two-way glass. Based on the interviews, he applied for separate

search warrants for two locations. He described finding the items T.O. described during

her forensic interview, including grapeseed and coconut oil, a package of baby wipes, a

       2
         Mr. Luna Huezo claims that Dr. Phipps, in her testimony, said he penetrated
T.O.’s rectum. The record does not support this claim.
        During cross-examination, Mr. Luna Huezo sought to establish inconsistency
between Dr. Phipps’s testimony about attempted vaginal and rectal penetration and her
report, which indicated that the penetration was actual. On cross, she admitted that her
report did not say anything about attempted. On redirect, Dr. Phipps clarified that T.O.
said Mr. Luna Huezo placed his penis in her rectum and vagina, but then added, “she was
too small, they didn’t fit. So it sounded more like an attempt than an actual insertion.”
RP at 161.

                                              7
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

backpack containing condoms, and a backpack containing duct tape and zip ties. After

the search, he set up the appointment for Dr. Phipps to examine T.O.

       Mr. Luna Huezo testified in his defense. He denied any inappropriate sexual

contact with either T.O. or B.O. After both parties rested, the State dismissed count 4,

a child molestation charge involving B.O.

       Verdict and sentence

       The jury found Mr. Luna Huezo guilty on all remaining counts and found the

presence of the aggravating factors. The court imposed an indeterminant sentence of

300 months to life and ordered Mr. Luna Huezo to comply with several conditions of

community custody, including the following that he challenges in this petition:

              5. Inform the supervising CCO[3] and sexual deviancy treatment
       provider of any dating relationship. Disclose sex offender status prior to
       any sexual contact. Sexual contact in a relationship is prohibited until the
       treatment provider approves of such.
              ....
              9. Do not enter sex-related businesses, including: x-rated movies,
       adult bookstores, strip clubs, and any location where the primary source of
       business is related to sexually explicit material.
              10. Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit
       material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by
       RCW 9.68.050 or any material depicting any person engaged in sexually
       explicit conduct as defined by RCW 9.68A.011(4) unless given prior
       approval by your sexual deviancy provider.
              ....

       3
           Community corrections officer.

                                             8
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

             12. Be available for and submit to urinalysis and/or breathanalysis
      upon the request of the CCO and/or the chemical dependency treatment
      provider.
             ....
             15. [ x ] Abide by a curfew of 10 pm-5 am unless directed
      otherwise. Remain at registered address or address previously approved by
      CCO during these hours.
             16. [ x ] Have no direct and/or indirect contact with minors.
             ....
             23. [ x ] No internet access or use, including email, without the
      prior approval of the supervising CCO.
             24. [ x ] No use of a computer, phone, or computer-related device
      with access to the Internet or on-line computer service except as necessary
      for employment purposes (including job searches). 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
      condition.

Pers. Restraint Pet. (PRP), Attach. A, App. H.

      Mr. Luna Huezo filed a direct appeal, and we affirmed his convictions. His

judgment and sentence became final when we issued our mandate on July 13, 2021.

RCW 10.73.090(3)(b). He filed this timely petition on January 12, 2022.

                                      ANALYSIS

A.    DR. PHIPPS’S TESTIMONY

      Mr. Luna Huezo advances two arguments why we should grant him a new trial,

both of which focus on Dr. Phipps’s testimony: (1) She gave an improper opinion that

                                            9
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

violated his Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution right to a jury trial, and

(2) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay of what T.O. told Dr. Phipps.4

       The first challenge is constitutionally based, whereas the second is not. We begin

by noting the differing standards of review for these two challenges.

       Standard of review

       Collateral relief from a conviction is an extraordinary remedy that seeks to disturb

a final judgment; therefore, a PRP must meet a high standard to obtain relief. In re Pers.

Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501, 506, 301 P.3d 450 (2013). Typically, this means a

petitioner must show either that they were actually and substantially prejudiced by

constitutional error or that their trial suffered from a fundamental defect of a

nonconstitutional nature that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice. In

re Pers. Restraint of Elmore, 162 Wn.2d 236, 251, 172 P.3d 335 (2007). The petitioner

bears the burden of demonstrating prejudice—that more likely

       4
         In his petition, Mr. Luna Huezo’s second argument appears to be a
constitutionally based confrontation clause challenge under Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36, 42, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). He describes the hearsay as
“testimonial” and cites cases that apply Crawford. PRP at 10-13. In its response, the
State points out that T.O. testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination, so there
was no Crawford violation. In his reply, Mr. Luna Huezo adamantly denies he asserted a
Crawford challenge. We therefore construe his challenge as one limited to the rules of
evidence.

                                             10
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

than not they were prejudiced by the error. In re Pers. Restraint of Brockie, 178 Wn.2d

532, 539, 309 P.3d 498 (2013). In conducting this inquiry, the court considers the totality

of the circumstances. Id.

       1.     Claim of constitutionally impermissible opinion testimony

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends that Dr. Phipps’s testimony was constitutionally

impermissible because, by inference, she testified he was guilty and she believed T.O.

       Criminal defendants have a constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by jury.

U.S. CONST. amend. VI; WASH. CONST. art. I, §§ 21, 22. “No witness, lay or expert, may

testify to his opinion as to the guilt of a defendant, whether by direct statement or

inference.” State v. Black, 109 Wn.2d 336, 348, 745 P.2d 12 (1987). Such testimony is

unfairly prejudicial to the defendant because it invades the province of the jury. State v.

Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 927, 155 P.3d 125 (2007). Because impermissible opinion

testimony invades the province of the jury, it is a constitutional error. Id.

       It is also improper for a witness to offer testimony concerning the credibility of

another witness. State v. Demery, 144 Wn.2d 753, 759, 30 P.3d 1278 (2001) (plurality

opinion). Such testimony is unfairly prejudicial and also invades the exclusive province

of the jury. Id. But the fact that an opinion encompassing ultimate factual issues supports

the conclusion that the defendant is guilty does not make the testimony an improper

                                              11
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

opinion on guilt. City of Seattle v. Heatley, 70 Wn. App. 573, 578-79, 854 P.2d 658

(1993).

      Here, Dr. Phipps testified about the sexual assaults T.O. reported to her and

T.O.’s demeanor while reporting the assaults:

      It was not the affect that you would typically expect of a 11 year-old in the
      office. She was withdrawn. She was tearful. She was very pleasant and
      cooperative [at times], so she was not [withdrawn and tearful] during the
      entire examination. She had times in which she would answer questions
      and smile and be engaged and be exactly what you would anticipate from a
      11 year-old.
              ....
              . . . I did think that she was a child who would benefit from having
      some counseling as well, because she was clearly, her affect and her mood
      demonstrated an abnormality that I could have considered consistent with
      some sort of trauma.

RP at 153-54.

      We do not view Dr. Phipps’s opinion as a direct or indirect opinion of Mr. Luna

Huezo’s guilt. Dr. Phipps’s opinion that T.O.’s demeanor reflected “an abnormality that

[she] could have considered consistent with some sort of trauma” was too indefinite to be

constitutionally impermissible. Although the jury could have inferred that T.O.’s trauma

was caused by sexual abuse, the indefinite nature of Dr. Phipps’s testimony permitted the

jury to find otherwise. But even were we to conclude that Dr. Phipps’s indefinite opinion

                                           12
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

amounted to an improper opinion of guilt, Mr. Luna Huezo’s claim would be subject to

harmless error analysis and he would be unable show actual and substantial prejudice.

       “If a constitutional error is subject to harmless error analysis on direct appeal, that

same error alleged in a PRP must be shown to have caused actual and substantial

prejudice in order for the petitioner to obtain relief.” Brockie, 178 Wn.2d at 539. In

conducting this inquiry, this court considers the totality of the circumstances. Id.

Considering the totality of circumstances, the evidence of guilt presented in Mr. Luna

Huezo’s trial was sufficiently strong that we are persuaded he would have been convicted

without Dr. Phipps’s indefinite opinion.

       T.O. testified at trial and the jury was able to view her demeanor as she reported

the numerous instances of sexual abuse and form its own determination of credibility.

Moreover, T.O. described to the jury how Mr. Luna Huezo had once used duct tape to tie

her hands together, that he kept condoms in a gray and blue backpack in his bathroom,

that he rubbed lubricant on his penis, and that he cleaned himself afterward with baby

wipes. Detective Santoy testified that he found all of these items during his search.

T.O.’s demeanor while testifying and the corroboration of her detailed testimony likely

resonated much more with the jury than Dr. Phipps’s indefinite opinion.

                                              13
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       2.     Claim of evidentiary error

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends T.O.’s statements through Dr. Phipps’s testimony

should not have been admitted because they were hearsay and did not fall under the

exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. We

conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted those statements.

       We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Burke, 196 Wn.2d

712, 740, 478 P.3d 1096, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 182, 211 L. Ed. 2d 74

(2021). “‘We will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless we believe that no

reasonable judge would have made the same ruling.’” Id. at 740-41 (internal quotation

marks omitted) (quoting State v. Ohlson, 162 Wn.2d 1, 8, 168 P.3d 1273 (2007)).

       Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible. ER 802. But ER 803(a) contains

various exceptions to this rule, based on the premise that evidence within those

exceptions is inherently reliable. One exception to the hearsay rule is statements made for

purposes of medical treatment. ER 803(a)(4). The exception encompasses diagnosis or

treatment of psychological conditions. See, e.g., State v. Woods, 143 Wn.2d 561, 602,

23 P.3d 1046 (2001). The scope of this exception encompasses “[s]tatements made for

purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or

present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause

                                             14
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”

ER 803(a)(4).

       “For the statement to be ‘reasonably pertinent’ to medical diagnosis or treatment

under ER 803(a)(4), the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be to promote

treatment and the medical professional must have relied on it for the purposes of

treatment.” Burke, 196 Wn.2d at 740. “Statements attributing fault are generally

inadmissible under this exception, but statements ‘disclosing the identity of a closely-

related perpetrator’ may be reasonably pertinent to treatment in certain situations like

domestic violence or sexual abuse ‘because part of reasonable treatment and therapy is to

prevent recurrence and future injury.’” Id. (quoting State v. Williams, 137 Wn. App. 736,

746, 154 P.3d 322 (2007)).

       As in Burke, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting

the sexual assault victim’s statements through the medical provider because those

statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. That is, even

though the statements were made to a medical professional assisting a police

investigation, it is reasonable to believe that T.O.’s motive was to promote treatment and

that Dr. Phipps relied on those statements for the purposes of treatment. Specifically,

T.O. likely made those statements for treatment, which includes preventing recurrence

                                             15
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

and future injury. And Dr. Phipps relied on those statements for treatment, i.e., assisting

law enforcement in preventing Mr. Luna Huezo from reinjuring T.O., recommending

counseling for T.O. to address her psychological trauma, and directing T.O. to her

laboratory for tests to determine the presence of sexually transmitted diseases.

       Were these issues presented to us on direct review, we would have affirmed the

trial court because it cannot be said that no reasonable judge would have made the same

rulings. Given the heightened standard of review applicable here, we deny Mr. Luna

Huezo’s evidentiary challenge because it cannot be said that the judge’s rulings

constituted a fundamental defect that inherently resulted in a complete miscarriage of

justice.

B.     COMMUNITY CUSTODY CONDITIONS

       Mr. Luna Huezo challenges eight community custody conditions imposed by the

sentencing court. We address each after we set forth the relevant standards of review.

       Standards of review

              For nonconstitutional challenges

       Mr. Luna Huezo challenges some conditions as not being authorized by law. This

type of challenge is a nonconstitutional challenge.

                                             16
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       The legislature has authorized trial courts to impose mandatory, waivable,

discretionary, and special conditions. RCW 9.94A.703(1)-(4). Discretionary conditions

include refraining from direct or indirect contact with the victim or a specified class of

individuals, performing affirmative conduct reasonably related to the circumstance of the

offense, and complying with crime-related prohibitions. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(b), (d), (f).

       Crime-related prohibitions are “order[s] of a court prohibiting conduct that directly

relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”

RCW 9.94A.030(10). A court does not abuse its discretion if a “reasonable relationship”

exists between the crime of conviction and the community custody condition. State v.

Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644, 658-59, 364 P.3d 830 (2015). The prohibited conduct need not

be identical to the crime of conviction, but there must be “some basis for the connection.”

Id. at 657. In addition, a sentencing court can also require an offender to perform

“affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance” with a community custody condition.

RCW 9.94A.030(10).

       To receive collateral review on a nonconstitutional ground, the petitioner must

establish that the claimed error constitutes a fundamental defect that inherently results in a

complete miscarriage of justice. In re Pers. Restraint of Carrier, 173 Wn.2d 791, 818,

                                             17
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

272 P.3d 209 (2012); In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861, 868, 50 P.3d 618

(2002).

              For constitutional challenges

       Mr. Luna Huezo challenges other conditions as being unconstitutional.

“Limitations upon fundamental rights are permissible, provided they are imposed

sensitively.” State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 37, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). Conditions that

interfere with the First Amendment rights of speech and association “must be reasonably

necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order.” State v.

Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672, 684, 416 P.3d 712 (2018).

       A condition is unconstitutionally overbroad if it is couched in terms so broad

that it may not only prohibit unprotected behavior but may also prohibit constitutionally

protected activity as well. In re Pers. Restraint of Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d 51, 67,

469 P.3d 322 (2020).

       A condition is unconstitutionally vague if “(1) it does not sufficiently define

the proscribed conduct so an ordinary person can understand the prohibition or (2) it

does not provide sufficiently ascertainable standards to protect against arbitrary

enforcement.” Padilla, 190 Wn.2d at 677. If a person of ordinary intelligence can

understand what the law proscribes, it is not vague even if there are possible areas of

                                              18
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

disagreement. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 754, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). To receive

collateral review on a constitutional ground, the petitioner must establish that the claimed

error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice. Elmore, 162 Wn.2d at 251.

       With these standards in mind, we now review the challenged conditions.

       CONDITION 5: DISCLOSURE OF RELATIONSHIPS AND SEX OFFENDER STATUS

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends condition 5 is not crime related and portions of the

condition are overbroad and infringe on his First Amendment rights. We address his

arguments separately.

       Crime relatedness

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends each sentence of condition 5 is not crime related.

We disagree.

       In Sickels, we interpreted the exact condition at issue here. Sickels, 14 Wn.

App. 2d at 60. We noted the condition’s first two sentences were not imposed

under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f), which requires “crime-relatedness.” Id. Instead, the

condition’s first two sentences are affirmative conduct requirements governed by

RCW 9.94A.703(3)(d) and need only to be “reasonably related to the circumstances

of the offense.” Id.

                                             19
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       As in Sickels, the first two sentences of condition 5 challenged here are reasonably

related to the circumstance of the offenses and safety of the community. Id. Because Mr.

Luna Huezo raped and molested his stepdaughters, these conditions protect individuals

whom he dates or may have a sexual relationship with by providing them with knowledge

of the potential risk he presents to minors. Id. at 61. They make it possible for his CCO

and treatment provider to take whatever step they might deem appropriate to protect

anyone who may enter a dating or sexual relationship with him. Id.

       The third sentence of condition 5 is a prohibition of conduct and must be crime

related under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). Id. When a condition prohibiting sexual contact in

a relationship without prior approval is imposed on a sex offender, along with the

requirement for early evaluation, the condition is crime related. Id. at 62. Similar to our

reasoning in Sickels, we conclude the condition is crime related in this case.

       Like the offender in Sickels, Mr. Luna Huezo’s judgment and sentence requires

him to obtain a sexual deviancy evaluation within 30 days of his release and to follow any

recommended treatment. Id. Reasonably read in conjunction with the requirement Mr.

Luna Huezo obtain sexual deviancy treatment, the third sentence of condition 5 does not

require Mr. Luna Huezo to get contact-by-contact approval for sexual contact for life.

“Reasonably read, it requires that he not have sexual contact ‘until’ his treatment provider

                                             20
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

is satisfied that sexual contact does not put others at risk. It is not a total ban on protected

activity and can be challenged as applied in the event the treatment provider’s approval is

exercised unreasonably.” Id. at 62-63.

       We conclude the first two sentences of condition 5 are reasonably related to the

circumstances of the offenses, and the third sentence is crime related.

       Overbreadth

       Mr. Luna Huezo also argues the first and third sentences of condition 5 are

overbroad. We disagree.

       With regard to the first sentence, Mr. Luna Huezo argues the condition is

overbroad because it infringes on his constitutional right to freedom of association.

We disagree.

       The First Amendment protects freedom of association. U.S. CONST. amend. I;

State v. Moultrie, 143 Wn. App. 387, 399, 177 P.3d 776 (2008). While in community

custody, an offender’s constitutional rights are subject to infringement as authorized by

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW. Id. at 396. This

includes restrictions on contact with the victim of the crime or a specific class of

individuals. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(b). A court may restrict an offender’s freedom of

association as a condition of sentencing if reasonably necessary to accomplish essential

                                              21
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

needs of the state and public order. Riley, 121 Wn.2d at 37-38. Such limitations are

permissible if they are sensitively imposed. Id. at 37.

       Mr. Luna Huezo relies on Moultrie for the proposition that “courts have also

recognized that it would not be reasonable to order a sex offender to have no contact with

a class of individuals who do not share a relationship to the offender’s crime.” 143 Wn.

App. at 399. But the first sentence of condition 5 here does not prohibit contact with any

particular class of individuals. Instead, it expressly allows Mr. Luna Huezo to engage in

dating relationships but requires he inform his sexual deviancy providers in order to

reduce the possibility of reoffending. And, as discussed above, the dating community

custody conditions are reasonably related to the circumstances of his crimes and protect

the individuals he might seek to date or engage with in sexual activity. The dating

limitations are sensitively imposed to protect others and minimize the likelihood that he

will commit similar sex offenses. Mr. Luna Huezo fails to show the first sentence of

condition 5 is overbroad or violates his freedom of association.

       We are also not persuaded the third sentence of condition 5 is overbroad. A

community custody condition is not impermissibly overbroad if it is crime related. State

v. Lee, 12 Wn. App. 2d 378, 401, 460 P.3d 701 (2020); see State v. McKee, 141 Wn. App.

22, 37, 167 P.3d 575 (2007) (“[A]n offender’s constitutional rights during community

                                             22
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

placement are subject to SRA-authorized infringements, including crime-related

prohibitions.”); see also State v. Bahl, 137 Wn. App. 709, 714-15, 159 P.3d 416 (2007),

overruled on other grounds, 164 Wn.2d 739. Because the third sentence of condition 5

is crime related, as discussed above, we reject Mr. Luna Huezo’s overbreadth challenge.

       Compelled speech

       Mr. Luna Huezo also challenges the second sentence of condition 5, requiring him

to disclose his sex offender status prior to any sexual contact, as an unconstitutional

compulsion of speech. We disagree.

       The right to freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom to refrain from

speech. U.S. CONST. amend. I, XIV; CONST. art. I, § 5; Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S.

705, 714, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977). Community custody conditions that

require an offender to speak implicate the First Amendment through the compelled

speech doctrine. State v. K.H.-H., 185 Wn.2d 745, 748-49, 374 P.3d 1141 (2016). “The

compelled speech doctrine generally dictates that the State cannot force individuals to

deliver messages that they do not wish to make.” Id. at 749. A community custody

condition that limits a fundamental right is permissible, provided it is imposed sensitively.

Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 757. First Amendment rights may be restricted if reasonably

necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and public order. Id.

                                             23
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       No published Washington case addresses whether a condition requiring an

offender to disclose his sex offender status prior to any sexual contact constitutes

unconstitutionally compelled speech. However, three unpublished cases out of Division

One of this court uphold similar conditions and one strikes down a similar condition.

       In State v. Stark, the court upheld an identical condition. No. 76676-7-I, slip op.

at 10 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2018) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/

pdf/766767.pdf. There, the offender was convicted of molestation and incest against the

minor daughter of his wife. Id. at 1. He challenged the condition as an unconstitutional

compulsion of speech. Id. at 5. The court upheld the provision, explaining:

              Although the challenged condition implicates [the offender’s] First
       Amendment rights, it is sensitively imposed and reasonably necessary.
       [The offender] was convicted of sex crimes against the minor child of a
       woman with whom he was having sexual contact. Requiring [him] to
       disclose his sex offender status before commencing a sexual relationship is
       reasonably necessary to protect the public.

Id. at 10.

       Similarly, in State v. Gray, an offender convicted of raping his minor daughter

challenged the same provision, in part arguing it violated his First Amendment

association rights. No. 77860-9-I, slip op. at 8 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2019)

(unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/778609.pdf. The court upheld

the provision. Id. Without explicitly addressing the First Amendment argument, the

                                             24
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

court reasoned that because the offender raped his daughter, the child of a woman who he

had a sexual relationship with, “[r]equiring him to disclose his sex offender status before

any sexual contact with a dating partner relates reasonably to protecting dating partners

and their children.” Id.

       Likewise, the court upheld an identical condition in State v. Matthie, reasoning:

       It provides notice to potential romantic partners who do not have children of
       their own but may have relationships that would provide [the offender]
       access to minors. For example, the disclosure requirement provides notice
       to partners who may be responsible for the safety of live-in or visiting
       minors and minors who are present in the home but not remaining
       overnight. The condition is also the only affirmative requirement that [the
       offender] put potential romantic partners on notice that they may need to
       take steps to protect minors in their care.

No. 79846-4-I, slip op. at 4-5 (Wash. Ct. App. June 8, 2020) (unpublished),

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/798464.pdf. The court concluded the condition

was “reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate state interest of preventing sex

offenses against minors, and was sensitively imposed.” Id. at 5.

       However, in State v. Mecham, the court struck down an identical condition as

unconstitutionally compelled speech where the crimes were committed against children,

not adults. No. 79008-1-I, slip op. at 14-15 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2020) (unpublished),

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/790081.pdf.

                                            25
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       We are persuaded by the reasoning in Stark and Matthie and apply it here. Mr.

Luna Huezo committed these crimes against his wife’s minor daughters. The condition is

reasonably necessary to protect minors, an essential need of the State and public order, in

particular minors related to or in the care of a person who Mr. Luna Huezo may have a

dating or sexual relationship in the future. The condition is sensitively imposed because it

is the only affirmative requirement that Mr. Luna Huezo put any person he dates on notice

that they may need to take steps to protect minors in their care. This challenge fails.

All considered, we affirm condition 5 in its entirety.

       CONDITION 9: SEX RELATED BUSINESSES

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends condition 9 is not crime related and is overbroad. We

disagree.

       Crime relatedness

       In State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 686, 425 P.3d 847 (2018), our

Supreme Court upheld a nearly identical condition as crime related in a case where the

offender was convicted of child molestation. There, the offender argued the condition

was not crime related because there was no evidence that sex businesses played any role

in the crimes. Id. The Supreme Court acknowledged that although there was no evidence

that sex businesses played a role in the crimes,

                                             26
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

      this condition has more to do with [the offender’s] inability to control
      her urges and impulsivities than it does with the specific facts of her
      crimes. . . . Here, it is unlikely that [the offender] will meet a minor, and
      potential victim, in a “sex-related business.” But, it is reasonable to
      conclude that [she] will struggle to rehabilitate from her sexual deviance so
      long as she frequents “sex-related businesses.” [Her] crimes have as much
      to do with her inability to control her sexual urges as they do with her
      access to minors.

Id. at 687. Similarly, Mr. Luna Huezo’s rape and molestation of his stepdaughters

demonstrates that he cannot control his sexual urges. For the same reasons explained

by the Hai Minh Nguyen court above, we conclude condition 9 is crime related here.

      Overbreadth

      Mr. Luna Huezo also challenges this condition as overbroad. But again, a

community custody condition is not impermissibly overbroad if it is crime related.

Lee, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 401; McKee, 141 Wn. App. at 37; Bahl, 137 Wn. App. at

714-15. Because we conclude condition 9 is crime related, we reject Mr. Luna Huezo’s

overbreadth challenge.

      CONDITION 10: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL

      Mr. Luna Huezo contends the limitation on accessing sexually explicit material is

not crime related and is overbroad. We agree, in part. A portion of the condition is

overbroad.

                                            27
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       Crime relatedness

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues condition 10 is not crime related because there is no

evidence pornography contributed to his offense. We disagree.

       Mr. Luna Huezo cites Padilla as support for his argument. 190 Wn.2d at 683.

But, the facts here are unlike Padilla where the State conceded the record did not show a

connection between sexually explicit material and the defendant’s offense pattern. Id.

The State makes no such concession here. Contrary to Mr. Luna Huezo’s assertion,

sexually explicit materials were a part of his crimes. T.O. told an investigator Mr. Luna

Huezo would show her pornographic movies on his cellphone and ask her to smile like

the women in those movies. T.O. acknowledged Mr. Luna Huezo showed her videos of a

girl and boy touching each other while in his room and his car. Sexually explicit videos

were therefore part of the circumstances of Mr. Luna Huezo’s crimes. Condition 10 is

crime related.

       In Hai Minh Nguyen, our Supreme Court also held that a prohibition on sexually

explicit materials in general is related to the crimes of child rape and molestation.

191 Wn.2d at 686. The court reasoned that by committing sex crimes, the defendant

“established his inability to control his sexual urges. It is both logical and reasonable to

conclude that a convicted person who cannot suppress sexual urges should be prohibited

                                             28
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

from accessing ‘sexually explicit materials,’ the only purpose of which is to invoke sexual

stimulation.” Id. The same reasoning applies here. By raping and molesting his

stepdaughters, Mr. Luna Huezo demonstrated he cannot suppress his sexual urges. The

prohibition is therefore crime related.

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues that Hai Minh Nguyen does not control here because it

does not address First Amendment issues. While the Hai Minh Nguyen court did not

address First Amendment issues, as discussed above, it did address the issue of crime

relatedness with regard to a similar condition. 191 Wn.2d at 686. That crime-related

analysis remains applicable to Mr. Luna Huezo’s argument that condition 10 is not crime

related.

       Overbreadth and vagueness

       Mr. Luna Huezo also contends condition 10 is overbroad. In his supplemental

brief, he specifies the last clause of condition 10 is overbroad. The State concedes the

last clause should be struck. We accept the State’s concession and conclude the last

clause is overbroad and vague.

       Mr. Luna Huezo relies on Sickels to support his argument. 14 Wn. App. 2d at 64.

In Sickels, the offender challenged an identical condition. Id. Analyzing the condition

under a vagueness rubric, we upheld the condition with the exception of the last clause.

                                            29
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

Id. at 65. The last clause prohibited the offender from possessing, using, accessing, or

viewing “any material depicting any person engaged in sexually explicit conduct as

defined by RCW 9.68A.011(4) unless given prior approval by your sexual deviancy

provider.” Id. at 60 (emphasis added). RCW 9.68A.011(4) defines “sexually explicit

conduct” as “actual or simulated” types of conduct. RCW 9.68A.011(4)(a)-(g)

(emphasis added). We held the clause was unconstitutionally vague because, “[g]iven the

purpose of the chapter, ‘sexually explicit conduct’ is broad, and includes conduct such as

simulated sexual intercourse that—engaged in by adults—appears in mainstream media.”

Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 65-66.

       Here, condition 10 contains the identical last clause with reference to

RCW 9.68A.011(4). Like in Sickels, we conclude the last clause of condition 10 is

unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide sufficiently ascertainable standards

to protect against arbitrary enforcement. We also conclude that the last clause is

unconstitutionally overbroad because “sexually explicit conduct” as defined to mean

“actual or simulated” conduct under RCW 9.68A.011(4) “is couched in terms so broad

that it may not only prohibit unprotected behavior but may also prohibit constitutionally

protected activity as well.” Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 67. We direct the sentencing court

                                            30
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

to strike or modify the last clause of condition 10 in accordance with this opinion and

Sickels.

       CONDITION 12: URINALYSIS/ BREATH ANALYSIS

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends condition 12 is not crime related or narrowly tailored,

and the court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed the condition. The State

concedes and requests we strike the entire condition. We nevertheless conclude a portion

of the condition is valid.

       We review whether a sentencing court had statutory authority to impose a

sentencing condition de novo. State v. Johnson, 180 Wn. App. 318, 325, 327 P.3d 704

(2014).

       First, the court had statutory authority to impose the portion of the condition that

requires random urinalysis testing because it separately imposed a waivable condition

requiring Mr. Luna Huezo to refrain from possessing or consuming controlled substances

except pursuant to lawfully issued prescriptions under RCW 9.94A.703(2)(c). Mr. Luna

Huezo does not challenge that waivable condition in his petition.

       The Department of Corrections may require “affirmative acts necessary to monitor

compliance with the order of a court” such as random urinalysis or breath analysis.

RCW 9.94A.030(10). Random urinalysis testing is therefore a statutorily valid condition

                                             31
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

to monitor his compliance with the prohibition on illegal controlled substance use. See

State v. Vant, 145 Wn. App. 592, 604, 186 P.3d 1149 (2008). The court did not exceed its

statutory authority when it required random urinalysis testing.

       However, the portion of the condition that requires Mr. Luna Huezo to submit to

breath analysis is not narrowly tailored.

       Mr. Luna Huezo relies on State v. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d 118, 399 P.3d 1141 (2017), to

support his argument the condition is not narrowly tailored. In Olsen, our Supreme Court

considered whether a requirement that driving under the influence probationers submit to

random urinalysis testing violated their privacy interests under article I, section 7 of our

state constitution. Id. at 120. It held that the urinalysis implicated a probationer’s

reduced privacy interest but did not violate article I, section 7, because the random testing

was conducted with authority of law. Id. at 126. But, Olsen does not answer the question

of whether random breath analysis testing is constitutionally permissible for a sex offense

probationer whose crime of conviction did not involve alcohol use. Olsen instead sets

forth a framework for analyzing whether such a condition is valid: whether the condition

is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Id. at 128.

       The condition’s requirement that Mr. Luna Huezo submit to breath analysis is not

narrowly tailored. The sentencing court has discretion to order an offender to refrain

                                              32
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

from consuming alcohol. Former RCW 9.94A.703(3)(e) (2009). This condition may be

imposed even if alcohol played no role in the underlying offense. State v. Jones, 118 Wn.

App. 199, 206-07, 76 P.3d 258 (2003). But the court here did not impose a condition that

would prohibit Mr. Luna Huezo from purchasing, possessing, or consuming alcohol. Nor

did it impose any conditions related to alcohol treatment. Further, Mr. Luna Huezo was

not convicted of an alcohol offense, such as the driving under the influence in Olsen.

Thus, the requirement that he submit to breath analysis is not narrowly tailored.

       Further, because this is an affirmative act requirement, under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(d),

the condition would need to be reasonably related to the circumstances of the offense, the

offender’s risk of reoffending, or the safety of the community. The State does not argue

that the condition should be upheld for any of these reasons. Instead, the State concedes

the whole condition should be struck. But, as discussed above, the condition’s urinalysis

requirements are valid. Thus, we direct the sentencing court to strike the condition’s

reference to breath analysis.

       CONDITION 15: CURFEW

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues condition 15 is not crime related. We agree.

       As an initial matter, the State contends this condition is authorized under

RCW 9.94A.703(3)(d), which allows the court to order an offender to perform affirmative

                                             33
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

conduct reasonably related to the offender’s risk of reoffending or the safety of the

community. The State argues “[s]trip clubs and adult bookstores are known to stay open

in late hours” and the condition is necessary to ensure Mr. Luna Huezo “not approach

runaway minor girls at night.” Resp. to PRP at 28. We are not persuaded by these

arguments.

       The curfew condition is not a condition to “otherwise perform affirmative

conduct” under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(d). Rather, it is a “crime-related prohibition” under

RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). The condition prohibits Mr. Luna Huezo from going out between

10:00 p.m. through 5:00 a.m. and requires him to remain at a registered address between

these hours. This is a prohibition of conduct, not a command of affirmative conduct.

This is evidenced by the condition being listed under the “Additional Crime-Related

Prohibitions” heading on the list of Mr. Luna Huezo’s community custody conditions,

appended to his judgment and sentence. PRP, App. H at 2.

       We will strike a crime-related condition it if there is no evidence in the record

linking the circumstance of the crime to the condition. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. at 656-57.

Here, there is no evidence linking Mr. Luna Huezo’s offenses to a specific time, let alone

any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Further, the State’s arguments

for the conditions are weak considering there is no evidence Mr. Luna Huezo’s crimes

                                             34
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

involved strip clubs or adult bookstores at late hours, nor do the crimes involve minor

runaway girls at night. Condition 15 must be struck because it is not crime related.

       CONDITION 16: CONTACT WITH MINORS

       Mr. Luna Huezo next challenges condition 16 because it bans all contact with

minors, including his own biological children. The State concedes error. We accept the

State’s concession.

       Natural parents have a fundamental right in the “care, custody, and management”

of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d

599 (1982). Conditions that interfere with fundamental rights must be “‘sensitively

imposed’” so that they are “‘reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of

the State and public order.’” In re Pers. Restraint of Rainey, 168 Wn.2d 367, 377, 229

P.3d 686 (2010) (quoting State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 32, 195 P.3d 940 (2008)).

       Mr. Luna Huezo had three natural children at the time of sentencing. The State

concedes the condition should be amended to allow Mr. Luna Huezo access to his natural

children. We accept this concession and remand to the sentencing court to amend

condition 16 in accordance with this opinion.

                                            35
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       CONDITIONS 23 AND 24: NO INTERNET, COMPUTER, OR PHONE ACCESS

       Mr. Luna Huezo contends conditions 23 and 24 are not crime related and are

overbroad and vague. The State concedes the conditions should be rewritten and

proposes amendments. We conclude both conditions are overbroad and reject the State’s

proposed amendments.

       Crime relatedness

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues these conditions are not crime related, asserting “the

record does not support, any connection between [his] alleged offenses and Internet use.”

PRP at 38. We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed, Mr. Luna Huezo

showed pornography on his phone to one of his victims. Accordingly, a prohibition on

Mr. Luna Huezo using his phone “directly relates to the circumstances” of his crimes.

RCW 9.94A.030(10). And a sentencing condition may prohibit a defendant’s access to a

means or medium through which he committed a crime. Rainey, 168 Wn.2d at 380.

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues that “[t]he State fails to explain how legal pornography

on a phone involves Internet, as there’s nothing in [the] record of how it got there . . . .”

Reply to State’s Resp. to PRP at 20-21. However, as the State argues, it is reasonable to

conclude the Mr. Luna Huezo utilized the Internet to access, download, or to otherwise

facilitate playing the pornography on his phone. Thus, a prohibition of Internet use or

                                              36
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

access is related to the circumstances of Mr. Luna Huezo’s crimes. We conclude

conditions 23 and 24 are both crime related.

       Overbreadth and vagueness

       Mr. Luna Huezo argues conditions 23 and 24 are overbroad and condition 23 is

vague. The State concedes condition 23 should be rewritten in accordance with our

decision in Sickels. We agree with Mr. Luna Huezo and accept the State’s concession.

       Restrictions on Internet access implicate the First Amendment. Packingham v.

North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 104, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2017). We have

held that blanket prohibitions on using the Internet or Internet capable devices are

impermissibly broad, even where the defendant used the Internet to commit a sex offense.

Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 73.

       In Sickels, we interpreted two conditions with identical language to conditions 23

and 24 challenged here. 14 Wn. App. 2d at 71-75. We held the conditions’ “limitation of

Internet use to employment purposes is overly broad” and the conditions’ provision for

“‘[n]o Internet access or use, including email’ is even more objectionable.” Id. at 73.

We also held the provision delegating authority to the offender’s supervising CCO to

approve Internet access was overbroad. Id. We noted the provision for random searches

to monitor compliance were reasonable as long as the restrictions on Internet and

                                             37
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

computer use are revised. Id. For these same reasons, we conclude conditions 23 and 24

here are overbroad.

       Condition 23’s provision prohibiting Internet access without CCO approval is also

vague because it “does not provide sufficiently ascertainable standards to protect against

arbitrary enforcement.” Padilla, 190 Wn.2d at 677. We remand for the sentencing court

to strike these conditions and impose more narrowly tailored conditions.

       The State’s proposed modification of condition 23 would not pass constitutional

muster. The State proposes that condition 23 be modified to read:

       “The defendant shall not access the internet to view any sexually explicit
       material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by
       RCW [9].68.050 or any material depicting any person engaged in sexually
       explicit conduct as defined by RCW 9.68A.011(4) unless given prior
       approval by your sexual deviancy provider.”

Suppl. Br. of Resp’t at 22. However, as discussed above with regard to condition 10,

the last clause of this proposed condition, “sexually explicit conduct as defined by

RCW 9.68A.011(4),” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d

at 65-66. Thus, the State’s proposed amendment to condition 23 is not constitutionally

sufficient.

                                            38
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

       The State’s proposed modification to condition 24 does not address the

problematic portions of the condition. The State’s proposal amends the last line of

condition 24 to read (proposed text in italics):

       “24. No use of a computer, phone, or computer-related device with access
       to the Internet or on-line computer service except as necessary for
       employment purposes (including job searches). 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
       condition based on the CCO’s reasonable suspicion that the defendant has
       violated a requirement or condition of the Judgment and Sentence.”

Resp. to PRP at 32-33.

       We acknowledge the State’s proposed text properly mirrors RCW 9.94A.631(1),

which allows a CCO to search an offender “[i]f there is reasonable cause to believe that

[the] offender has violated a condition.” See State v. Massey, 81 Wn. App. 198, 201, 913

P.2d 424 (1996) (“While the failure to include the language does not affect the order’s

constitutionality, we urge sentencing courts to state explicitly in the order that searches of

parolees and probationers must be based on reasonable suspicion.”). However, the

problematic portions of condition 24 include the total ban on computers and phones, and

the limitation of Internet use to only employment purposes. Sickels, 14 Wn. App. 2d at

73. We remand for the court to impose more narrowly tailored conditions.

                                              39
No. 38697-0-III
In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo

                                      CONCLUSION

        To the extent Mr. Luna Huezo seeks a new trial, we deny his personal restraint

petition. But to the extent he seeks relief from some of his community custody

conditions, we partly grant his petition.

        We reverse in part and remand with directions for the trial court to:

    •    Modify community custody condition 10 to exclude simulated sexually explicit

          conduct as defined by RCW 9.68A.011(4);

    •    Modify community custody condition 12 by striking the reference to breath

          analysis;

    •    Strike community custody condition 15;

    •    Modify community custody condition 16 to allow Mr. Luna Huezo to access his

          natural children; and

    •    Strike community custody conditions 23 and 24 and consider whether to impose

         conditions that more narrowly restrict computer, phone, and Internet use.

                                             40
ll
I    No. 38697-0-III
     In re Pers. Restraint of Huezo
I
i
I          A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the

II   Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

     RCW 2.06.040.

                                              Lawrence-Berrey, A.C:}

     WE CONCUR:

                                              Staab, J.

                                                 41