IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 81212-2-I ) Respondent, ) DIVISION ONE ) v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION ) ALEJANDRO PEÑA SALVADOR, ) ) Appellant. ) )
HAZELRIGG, J. — Alejandro Peña Salvador seeks reversal of his convictions
for one count of child molestation in the first degree, two counts of rape of a child
in the second degree, and one count of child molestation in the third degree. He
contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to excuse a prospective
juror for cause, resulting in the seating of a biased juror. Because Peña Salvador
has not shown that the juror expressed actual bias, we affirm the jury verdict.
Peña Salvador also challenges three of the conditions of community
custody imposed by the court and requests that a scrivener’s error in the judgment
and sentence be corrected on remand. We accept the State’s concessions that
the trial court mistakenly failed to consider Peña Salvador’s constitutional right to
parent his biological children when prohibiting contact with any minors and that the
judgment and sentence contains a scrivener’s error. We remand for
reconsideration of the condition prohibiting contact with any minors in light of Peña No. 81212-2-I/2
Salvador’s right to parent his biological children, to strike the condition requiring
payment of the supervision fees, and to correct the scrivener’s error in the
judgment and sentence.
FACTS
Alejandro Peña Salvador started dating Maria C. in 2009. Maria had three
daughters: L.O., born in 1999, J.O., born in 2001, and K.O., born in 2006. Peña
Salvador had a son around K.O.’s age who lived in Mexico. Peña Salvador soon
moved in with Maria and her daughters. He and Maria had a son, K.P., in 2013.
In April 2015, when L.O. was 16 years old, she disclosed to a counselor that
Peña Salvador had touched her inappropriately when she was 13 or 14 years old.
The counselor contacted Child Protective Services (CPS), who referred the case
to police. The investigating detective was not able to make contact with L.O. or
Maria, and the case was inactivated.
In February 2018, J.O. disclosed to a counselor that Peña Salvador had
sexually abused her repeatedly, starting when she was nine or ten years old. The
counselor contacted the police, and Peña Salvador was arrested. During the
investigation of J.O.’s allegations, a detective also spoke with L.O. about the
disclosure she had made in 2015. As to J.O., Peña Salvador was charged with
one count of child molestation in the first degree for events occurring between
March 2009 and March 2013 and two counts of rape of a child in the second degree
for events occurring between March 2012 and March 2015. As to L.O., the State
charged Peña Salvador with child molestation in the third degree for events
occurring between March 2011 and March 2015.
-2- No. 81212-2-I/3
At the beginning of jury selection, prospective jurors completed a
questionnaire regarding the general subject matter of the case. Based on their
answers, many of the jurors were called in for individual questioning. Juror 44 was
one of the jurors questioned individually about his questionnaire responses. In
response to a question asking if there was any reason that he would be unable to
be fair and impartial to both sides in a case involving an accusation of sexual abuse
of a child, he indicated that he was not sure that he could be impartial: “As a school
bus driver, I think of the students as my kids and [grandkids].” Defense counsel
asked if he had formed an opinion on Peña Salvador’s guilt when he heard the
charges, and Juror 44 said that he had not, but stated, “I don’t know if I can be
impartial, and that would be unfair to your client.” He said that he “would like to
think [he’s] an impartial person” but referenced the unconscious bias video that
had been shown to the venire and stated, “I believe in the system. I don’t want this
gentleman to have me have bias against him from the get-go.” Defense counsel
asked, “[A]re you telling me that you think that you would be biased against my
client?” and the prospective juror responded, “I’m afraid I might be [ ] and I’m just
being honest with you.”
The prosecutor then asked what bias he was concerned about, and Juror
44 responded that he was worried that the nature of the charges would induce him
to make an incorrect decision. The prospective juror was not sure how to answer
the question of whether he would be able to presume the defendant innocent. He
stated that he believed it was possible for children to both lie and tell the truth about
such allegations, and was not sure that he could evaluate the credibility of
-3- No. 81212-2-I/4
witnesses: “Sometimes I’ve had the wool pulled over my eyes by people I’ve
trusted.” He believed that he could follow the court’s instructions on the law and
on which evidence to consider. The prosecutor asked, “[I]s there anything, other
than your regular interaction with children and family that would make you think
that you would rush to judgment on a case like this?” and the juror responded, “No,
because I believe in the system.” Juror 44 had served on a jury before, and the
prosecutor inquired about his understanding of the system:
[PROSECUTOR]: But, like you said, you understand the process and what’s necessary to sit on a jury and to keep an open mind throughout the course of trial?
JUROR: Yes.
[PROSECUTOR]: Is that something, even with the charges, that you think you could try to do?
JUROR: Yes, I think I could.
Defense counsel proceeded to ask a number of follow-up questions:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . Sir, have you—after hearing the allegations—well, not—have you formed an opinion about whether or not you feel my client is guilty or innocent?
JUROR: Oh, no, that’s—that’s why I’m afraid if my bias gets in. I don’t want to especially go conviction style if I don’t feel he’s guilty of it. I don’t want me, my possible—and I don’t know where it sits. I don’t want to make a mistake.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you think that you would give more weight to the victims, since you’re around children and you interact with them all the time?
JUROR: I’m more afraid of what evidence might be brought—
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Out against—
JUROR: —and it would be upsetting.
-4- No. 81212-2-I/5
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay.
JUROR: But, no, I would—I would listen to both sides.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But you do have a question in your mind whether or not you could be fair or impartial, does that still stand?
JUROR: I think so.
Defense counsel moved to exclude the prospective juror for cause. The
court denied the motion, explaining, “[H]e doesn’t want to make a mistake. The
conscientiousness of this juror is exactly what we look for in a juror. He is
concerned. He is aware of implicit bias and is conscientiously making efforts to
keep that in check.” The juror served on the jury and deliberated.
At trial, L.O. and J.O. both testified that Peña Salvador had touched them
inappropriately on multiple occasions. L.O. testified that she had been called a liar
when she reported Peña Salvador’s behavior in 2015, so she avoided being
interviewed by police and CPS because she did not want to talk about it anymore.
J.O. testified that she had told a childhood friend in confidence about the abuse as
it was happening but did not tell anyone else until 2018, when she became
concerned that Peña Salvador might be abusing her younger sister, K.O. Peña
Salvador testified in his own defense and denied the allegations. The jury found
Peña Salvador guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a total of 240 months of
confinement. Peña Salvador appealed.
-5- No. 81212-2-I/6
ANALYSIS
I. Biased Juror
Peña Salvador first contends that he did not receive a fair trial because the
court denied his request to dismiss Juror 44 for cause, therefore allowing a biased
juror to deliberate.
A. Preservation
As a threshold issue, the State argues that Peña Salvador has waived
review of this issue because he accepted the jury panel, which included Juror 44,
without exhausting his peremptory challenges. Peña Salvador disagrees, arguing
that “[t]he only way to preserve an improperly denied ‘for cause’ challenge is to
refrain from using a peremptory challenge and allow the juror to serve.”
Throughout the 21st century, Washington courts largely adhered to the rule,
articulated in State v. Stentz, that “[a] refusal to sustain challenges for proper
cause, necessitating peremptory challenges on the part of the accused, will be
considered on appeal as prejudicial where the accused has been compelled
subsequently to exhaust all his peremptory challenges before the final selection of
the jury.” 30 Wash. 134, 143, 70 P. 241 (1902), abrogated by State v. Fire, 145
Wn.2d 152, 34 P.3d 1218 (2001) In Stentz, the Washington Supreme Court
determined that the trial court erred in denying a for-cause challenge to a potential
juror who was later removed from the venire using the defendant’s last peremptory
challenge. Id. at 137, 141. Even though the court’s error did not result in the
seating of a biased juror, the court found that the error resulted in prejudice
-6- No. 81212-2-I/7
because “the accused was deprived of one peremptory challenge to which he was
by law entitled.” Id. at 147.
This rule was reiterated in State v. Parnell, which involved a similar factual
scenario. 77 Wn.2d 503, 507–08, 463 P.2d 134 (1969), abrogated by Fire, 145
Wn.2d 152. The court found that “[a]ny error involved in failing to grant the
defendant’s challenge for cause against venireman Martin was not obviated by the
fact that he did not sit on the jury” because the defendant had to use one of her
peremptory challenges, which she exhausted, to remove the biased juror. Id. at
508. The court reasoned that not only is every defendant “entitled to a fair trial
before 12 unprejudiced and unbiased jurors,” but “there should be no lingering
doubt” about the fairness of the trial. Id.
In State v. Latham, the trial court denied for-cause challenges to two jurors,
whom the defendant then excused using peremptory challenges. 100 Wn.2d 59,
63, 667 P.2d 56 (1983). Latham argued on appeal that “the denial of his
challenges to Wright and Flagel was erroneous and forced him to use peremptory
challenges that he could have used better on other jurors.” Id. The Washington
Supreme Court found that Latham had failed to show that the two jurors should
have been excused for bias. Id. at 63–64. Although the court acknowledged that
it “need not address” the issue of prejudice because it had found no error, it
asserted that “the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should
have been removed for cause ‘cures’ the error.” Id. at 64 (citing United States v.
Tweed, 503 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir. 1974); State v. Dixon, 5 Or. App. 113, 481 P.2d
629 (1971)).
-7- No. 81212-2-I/8
In early 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided United States v.
Martinez-Salazar, holding that a defendant who elects to cure an erroneous denial
of a for-cause challenge by exercising a peremptory challenge and “is
subsequently convicted by a jury on which no biased juror sat . . . has not been
deprived of any rule-based or constitutional right.” 528 U.S. 304, 307, 317, 120 S.
Ct. 774, 145 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2000). Even though Martinez-Salazar exhausted all
of his peremptory challenges, the Court reasoned that he was not required to use
his peremptory challenge curatively but made the “hard choice” to do so:
After objecting to the District Court’s denial of his for-cause challenge, Martinez-Salazar had the option of letting Gilbert sit on the petit jury and, upon conviction, pursuing a Sixth Amendment[1] challenge on appeal. Instead, Martinez-Salazar elected to use a challenge to remove Gilbert because he did not want Gilbert to sit on his jury. This was Martinez-Salazar’s choice. The District Court did not demand—and Rule 24(b) did not require—that Martinez-Salazar use a peremptory challenge curatively. In choosing to remove Gilbert rather than taking his chances on appeal, Martinez-Salazar did not lose a peremptory challenge. Rather, he used the challenge in line with a principal reason for peremptories: to help secure the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury.
Id. at 309, 315–16.
Soon after, in State v. Roberts, the Washington Supreme Court considered
a claim that a trial court’s erroneous denials of challenges for cause against 13
jurors, four of whom were seated before being removed by defense peremptory
challenges, forced the defendant to exhaust his peremptory challenges
prematurely. 142 Wn.2d 471, 517, 14 P.3d 713 (2000). The court cited Martinez-
Salazar as support for its statement that “[i]t is well established that an erroneous
1 U.S. Const. amend. VI.
-8- No. 81212-2-I/9
denial of a challenge for cause may be cured when the challenged juror is removed
by peremptory.” Id. The court noted that Roberts had “not only used his
peremptory challenges to remove the four seated jurors he unsuccessfully
challenged for cause but also turned down the trial court’s offer of two extra
peremptory challenges.” Id. at 518. Therefore, the court held, Roberts’ rights were
not violated because he could not demonstrate that jurors who should have been
removed for cause actually sat on the panel. Id.
The following year, the Washington Supreme Court decided the two cases
on which the parties here primarily rely for their positions. The State largely
depends on State v. Clark for its argument that Peña Salvador cannot obtain a
new trial based on the allegedly erroneous denial of a challenge for cause if he
failed to exercise all available peremptory challenges. 143 Wn.2d 731, 24 P.3d
1006 (2001). In Clark, the defendant exercised all but one of his peremptory
challenges and argued on appeal that he “effectively used [his] final peremptory
challenge” against the next juror that he thought would be seated if he used his
peremptory challenge against any of the jurors on the panel. Id. at 762–63. Clark
had not challenged any of the ultimately seated jurors for cause. Id. The court
declined to review the merits of Clark’s challenges to the jury composition, noting,
“At the threshold this issue is not properly raised because Clark accepted the jury
as ultimately empaneled and did not exercise all of his peremptory challenges.
Under well-settled case law, Clark can therefore show no prejudice based on the
jury’s composition.” Id.
-9- No. 81212-2-I/10
Peña Salvador distinguishes Clark on the grounds that the jury empaneled
in that case contained no jurors to whom the defendant had actually objected. See
id. at 763–64. He also points out that none of the cases cited by Clark as the “well-
settled case law” underlying its decision involved challenges to a specific juror.
See State v. Tharp, 42 Wn.2d 494, 500, 256 P.2d 482 (1953) (challenge to the trial
court’s failure to administer the juror oath raised for the first time on appeal); State
v. Collins, 50 Wn.2d 740, 744, 314 P.2d 660 (1957) (challenge to questions asked
by the prosecutor during voir dire); State v. Robinson, 75 Wn.2d 230, 231–32, 450
P.2d 180 (1969) (claim of prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire); State v.
Gentry, 125 Wn.2d 570, 615–16, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995) (challenge to inadvertent
replacement of a regular juror by an alternate juror raised for the first time on
appeal); State v. Elmore, 139 Wn.2d 250, 277, 985 P.2d 289 (1999) (claim of
improper questioning by the prosecutor during voir dire raised for the first time on
appeal).
Although it contains rather broad language, we agree that Clark is not
precisely on point here because the defendant in that case did not raise an
objection to any specific member of the jury. The fact that the Clark decision did
not discuss Martinez-Salazar, Parnell, Stentz, or any other case specifically
addressing the denial of a for-cause challenge also indicates that it is not directly
applicable to this situation.
Peña Salvador argues that the correct rule stems from State v. Fire and its
progeny. 145 Wn.2d 152. In Fire, the Washington Supreme Court considered a
factual situation analogous to Martinez-Salazar:
- 10 - No. 81212-2-I/11
At issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a challenge for cause to Juror No. 8 and whether, without a further showing of prejudice, reversal is the remedy for a trial court’s error in not dismissing a potential juror for cause where the defendant later uses a peremptory challenge to remove that juror and exhausts his remaining challenges before the final selection of the jury.
Id. at 157. Four justices believed that the rule in Stentz and Parnell—“that the
forced use of a peremptory challenge constitutes the loss or deprivation of a
challenge”—was no longer good law in Washington and that Martinez-Salazar
articulated the current rule. Id. at 162–63. One justice concurred in result, opining
that, although Parnell remained good law, it should be abandoned in favor of
Martinez-Salazar. Id. at 165–66 (Alexander, C.J., concurring). The remaining four
justices dissented, writing that the lead opinion ignored “well-established
precedent and overrule[d] sub silentio no fewer than six decisions of this court.”
Id. at 168 (Sanders, J., dissenting).
Although the decision was fractured, a majority of the court agreed that the
Martinez-Salazar rule should be adopted in Washington and that Fire could not
show prejudice even if the juror should have been removed for cause because the
challenged juror did not sit on the panel. Id. at 154, 159, 165–67. The lead opinion
in Fire also referenced the reasoning in Martinez-Salazar that “‘a hard choice is
not the same as no choice’” and the alternatives laid out by the United States
Supreme Court:
As the Court indicated, if a defendant believes that a juror should have been excused for cause and the trial court refused his for-cause challenge, he may elect not to use a peremptory challenge and allow the juror to be seated. After conviction, he can win reversal on appeal if he can show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the for-cause challenge.
- 11 - No. 81212-2-I/12
Id. at 158 (quoting Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 315).
In support of his argument, Peña Salvador cites two decisions of this court
that rely on Fire: State v. Gonzales, 111 Wn. App. 276, 45 P.3d 205 (2002), and
State v. David, 118 Wn. App. 61, 74 P.3d 686 (2003), modified on remand on other
grounds, 130 Wn. App. 232, 122 P.3d 764 (2005). In Gonzales, we determined
that the trial court had erred in denying a for-cause challenge, resulting in the
seating of a biased juror. 111 Wn. App. at 282–83. Although the defendant did
not exhaust his peremptory challenges, the Gonzales opinion did not analyze
whether the issue was waived. Id. at 280–82. Rather, the court summarily stated
that, “[w]hen a defendant is denied his or her constitutional right to a fair and
impartial jury, the remedy is reversal,” citing the language from Fire describing the
defendant’s “options” of using a peremptory challenge or allowing the challenged
juror to be seated. Id. at 282.
In David, this court explicitly rejected the State’s argument that the
defendant had waived his right to argue that two jurors were biased because he
failed to use all of his peremptory challenges. 118 Wn. App. at 68. The David
court declared that the “Supreme Court rejected that argument in State v. Fire” and
concluded that,
a defendant need not use all of his peremptory challenges before he can show prejudice arising from the selection and retention of a particular juror. In fact, the opposite is true, if a defendant exhausts his peremptory challenges to remove a juror after denial of a for- cause challenge, the defendant cannot then argue on appeal that he was prejudiced by the denial of the for-cause challenge, because the juror was not seated.
- 12 - No. 81212-2-I/13
Id. We reached the merits of the issue and found no error in the denial of the
challenges for cause. Id. at 70–71.
Peña Salvador argues that “Fire, Gonzales, and David make it clear that
defense counsel must not use a peremptory challenge on a juror if the goal is to
preserve appellate review following denial of a for-cause challenge.” The State
contends that Peña Salvador reads these cases too broadly. It argues that “Fire
presented a completely different issue” because the defendant had exhausted his
peremptory challenges. 145 Wn.2d at 165. It also characterizes Gonzales is “ill-
founded” because it “quotes the dicta in Fire, without further analysis, as authority
to reverse a conviction due to the erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge even
though the defendant did not exhaust all his peremptory challenges.”
The State’s argument suggests that whether or not defendants have
exhausted their peremptory challenges constitutes a significant distinction that
Gonzales and David failed to confront. When a defendant exhausts their
peremptory challenges, they face the “hard choice” referenced in Martinez-Salazar
between excusing one juror or another. By contrast, the State analogizes the
situation in which a defendant allows a challenged juror to sit on the jury despite
having unused peremptory challenges to the doctrine of invited error:
Just as a defendant who affirmatively agrees to the wording of a jury instruction cannot later challenge the instruction even on constitutional grounds, . . . a juror who accepts a jury panel without exhausting peremptory challenges should not be allowed to later complain that his constitutional rights were violated by the seating of a juror he affirmatively accepted.
The State contends that Peña Salvador’s articulation of the rule creates a situation
in which,
- 13 - No. 81212-2-I/14
a defendant who believes the denial of his for-cause challenge was clearly erroneous is incentivized to sit on his hands, even when it would cost him nothing to remove the allegedly biased juror, and enjoy a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation: if he wins a favorable jury verdict, he can pocket his victory, and if he loses, he can get a new trial.
Despite the compelling parallels to the invited error doctrine and the factual
distinctions from Fire and Martinez-Salazar, the Washington Supreme Court has
not differentiated between cases in which a defendant has exhausted their
peremptory challenges and those in which they have not for purposes of the waiver
argument. Reading together the existing authority in Martinez-Salazar, Fire,
Gonzales, and David, we cannot definitively conclude that Peña Salvador’s
challenge to Juror 44 is waived because he did not exhaust his peremptory
challenges. We will consider the merits of Peña Salvador’s claim.
B. Actual Bias
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution guarantee a criminal
defendant the right to trial by an impartial jury. State v. Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn. App.
2d 843, 854–55, 456 P.3d 869 (2020). To protect this right, the trial court should
excuse a prospective juror for cause if the juror’s views “would ‘“prevent or
substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his
instructions and his oath.”’” Gonzales, 111 Wn. App. at 277–78 (quoting State v.
Hughes, 106 Wn.2d 176, 181, 721 P.2d 902 (1986)). “The presence of a biased
juror cannot be harmless; the error requires a new trial without a showing of
prejudice.” State v. Irby, 187 Wn. App. 183, 193, 347 P.3d 1103 (2015).
- 14 - No. 81212-2-I/15
We review a trial court’s determination of whether to dismiss a juror for
abuse of discretion. State v. Depaz, 165 Wn.2d 842, 852, 204 P.3d 217 (2009).
A trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on untenable grounds
or reasons. Id. The trial court is in the best position to determine a juror’s ability
to be fair and impartial because it can observe the juror’s demeanor and evaluate
and interpret their responses during voir dire. State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 839,
809 P.2d 190 (1991). Establishing a manifest abuse of discretion requires more
than “a mere possibility of prejudice.” Id. at 840. “But the ‘trial court’s broad
discretion in the conduct of voir dire is nevertheless subject to essential demands
of fairness.’” Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn. App. 2d at 856 (quoting Hughes v. United
States, 258 F.3d 453, 457 (6th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
At trial, either party may challenge a prospective juror for cause on the
grounds of actual bias. RCW 4.44.130; RCW 4.44.170(2). Actual bias is “the
existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to
either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the
issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party
challenging.” RCW 4.44.170(2).
A trial court need not excuse a prospective juror with preconceived opinions
if the juror can set those ideas aside and decide the case on the evidence at trial
and the law as provided by the court. RCW 4.44.190; Guevara Diaz, 11 Wn. App.
2d at 855. But a juror should be excused if it appears from all the circumstances
that the juror cannot disregard a preconceived opinion and try the issue impartially.
RCW 4.44.190. The trial court should always presume juror bias if it hears “a
- 15 - No. 81212-2-I/16
‘statement of partiality without a subsequent assurance of impartiality.’” Guevara
Diaz, 11 Wn. App. 2d at 855 (quoting Miller v. Webb, 385 F.3d 666, 674 (6th Cir.
2004)). However, “equivocal answers alone do not require a juror to be removed
when challenged for cause.” Noltie, 116 Wn.2d at 839.
Peña Salvador cites Gonzales in support of his argument that the court
erred in denying his request to exclude Juror 44. In Gonzales, a prospective juror
indicated bias in favor of police witnesses and admitted that she did not know if
she could presume the defendant innocent in the face of officer testimony
indicating guilt. 111 Wn. App. at 281. This court determined that the juror had
demonstrated actual bias because, although preference in favor of police
testimony does not conclusively establish bias, the juror “[a]t no time . . .
express[ed] confidence in her ability to deliberate fairly or to follow the judge’s
instructions regarding the presumption of innocence.” Id. at 281–82.
Similarly, in State v. Irby, a prospective juror indicated that she was “more
inclined towards the prosecution” because she had worked for Child Protective
Services. 187 Wn. App. at 190. When asked whether that experience would affect
her ability to be fair and impartial, she responded, “I would like to say he’s guilty.”
Id. Neither the court nor the prosecutor asked any follow-up questions regarding
the juror’s ability to be impartial. Id. The defendant had waived counsel and
voluntarily absented himself from the trial. Id. at 189. We held that the juror’s
response was akin to an “unqualified statement that she did not think she could be
fair” and the court committed reversible error by failing to excuse the juror, even in
the absence of a for-cause challenge. Id. at 196.
- 16 - No. 81212-2-I/17
Peña Salvador argues that this case is analogous to Gonzales and Irby
because Juror 44 “repeatedly stated that he was not sure if he could be fair” and
“he was never able to assure the parties and the court that he could be fair.” He
contends that the court failed to acknowledge that the prospective juror had
expressed actual bias in favor of children. The State argues that the trial court
properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to exclude Juror 44 for
cause because the record does not indicate a reasonable probability, rather than
a mere possibility, that Juror 44 was actually biased. Rather, the State contends
that Juror 44’s comments show that he “was not reporting any actual identifiable
bias, but merely that he was ‘afraid [he] might be’ biased given what he had learned
about unconscious bias.” It argues that Juror 44’s responses about evaluating
credibility of witnesses “demonstrat[e] that his equivocation had more to do with
his fear of making a mistake (by failing to accurately discern the truth) than with
any actual bias.”
In context, the prospective juror’s comments appear to show that he was
aware of the possibility of unconscious bias, was worried about hearing evidence
that might be upsetting, and was concerned about his ability to evaluate the
evidence correctly. Although he initially expressed some preconceived opinions
and potential partiality, he affirmatively stated that he understood the presumption
of innocence and that he would listen to both sides. Juror 44’s equivocal
statements are not sufficient to establish more than a mere possibility of actual
bias, and Peña Salvador has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to remove the juror for cause.
- 17 - No. 81212-2-I/18
II. Community Custody Conditions
Peña Salvador challenges one of the standard conditions of community
custody imposed and two of the special conditions imposed because he was
convicted of a sex offense. Specifically, he challenges standard condition 4,
requiring him to “[p]ay supervision fees as determined by the Department of
Corrections [DOC];” special condition 15, prohibiting all “direct or indirect contact
with minors;” and special condition 17, which provides that he shall:
[s]tay out of areas where children’s activities regularly occur or are occurring. This includes parks used for youth activities, schools, daycare facilities, playgrounds, wading pools, swimming pools being used for youth activities, play areas (indoor or outdoor), sports fields being used for youth sports, arcades, and any specific location identified in advance by DOC or the [Community Corrections Officer].
A. Contact with Minors
First, Peña Salvador contends that special condition 15, which prohibits all
direct or indirect contact with minors, is not narrowly tailored to address contact
with his two biological sons and interferes with his fundamental constitutional right
to parent. He argues that remand is required for modification and appropriate
tailoring of this condition. Sentencing conditions that interfere with a defendant’s
fundamental constitutional right to parent their biological children “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)).
- 18 - No. 81212-2-I/19
The State agrees that the trial court mistakenly failed to consider Peña
Salvador’s constitutional right to parent his biological children when prohibiting
contact with any minors. It noted that the record indicates that the court intended
for the community custody no-contact condition to mirror the no-contact condition
of the sentence but that, in an apparent oversight, the boilerplate language of
Appendix H to the judgment and sentence was not modified to reflect the court’s
oral ruling. Accordingly, the State concedes that remand is appropriate to allow
the sentencing court to consider whether to modify the condition based on the
restrictions the court finds reasonably necessary to prevent harm to Peña
Salvador’s biological children. We accept the State’s concession and remand for
reconsideration of this condition.2
B. Areas Where Children’s Activities Occur
Peña Salvador also argues that the condition barring him from “areas where
children’s activities regularly occur or are occurring” is vague and ambiguous and
that, as written, it is not sufficiently crime-related. The State argues that the
condition is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides adequate notice of
the areas Peña Salvador is to avoid, all of which are sufficiently crime-related, and
contains sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
A sentencing court may order an offender to comply with any crime-related
prohibitions as part of a term of community custody. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). A
2 Peña Salvador also argues that defense counsel was ineffective when she failed to object
to this condition of community custody. Because we accept the State’s concession that remand is appropriate, we need not address Peña Salvador’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the no-contact provisions.
- 19 - No. 81212-2-I/20
defendant may challenge conditions of community custody for the first time on
appeal. State v. Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672, 677, 416 P.3d 712 (2018). When the
challenge involves a legal question that can be resolved on the existing record, we
may address it pre-enforcement. Id. We review community custody conditions for
abuse of discretion. Id. “A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion if it imposes
an unconstitutional community custody condition, and we review constitutional
questions de novo.” State v. Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d 234, 238, 449 P.3d 619
(2019).
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 3 of the Washington State Constitution require that citizens have fair
warning of proscribed conduct. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 752, 193 P.3d 678
(2008). “A legal prohibition, such as a community custody 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. However, a condition “‘is not unconstitutionally vague
merely because a person cannot predict with complete certainty the exact point at
which his actions would be classified as prohibited conduct.’” Id. (quoting State v.
Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 793, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010)). “[D]ue process
does not require ‘impossible standards of specificity.’” Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d at
242 (quoting City of Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 26–27, 759 P.2d 366 (1988)).
Rather, “in the context of community custody, court may enforce ‘commonsense’
- 20 - No. 81212-2-I/21
restrictions, including those that use nonexclusive lists to elucidate general
phrases.” Id. at 242–43.
Peña Salvador argues that, because the first portion of the condition is
written in the disjunctive (“areas where children’s activities regularly occur or are
occurring”), the illustrative list that follows “becomes internally confusing.” He
contends that the mix of clearly prohibited “locations that appear to be child-
specific, such as schools, daycare facilities, and arcades,” and those that are “not
necessarily child-specific, such as parks, swimming pools, and sports fields,”
makes it unclear whether, for example, he is prohibited “from going for a walk or
jog in a park [in] the dead of winter, even though youth camps are routinely held at
the park in the summer.” Peña Salvador contends that Wallmuller is inapplicable
because it did not address the specific language challenged here.
Peña Salvador analogizes this condition to that analyzed in United States
v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001). In Peterson, the Second Circuit found
that a condition prohibiting the defendant from “being on any school grounds, child
care center, playground, park, recreational facility or in any area in which children
are likely to congregate” ambiguous because “[i]t is not clear whether the clause
‘in which children are likely to congregate’ applies only to ‘any area,’ or to the other
places listed.” Id. at 86. The court explained that, as written, it was “unclear
whether the prohibition applies only to parks and recreational facilities in which
children congregate, or whether it would bar the defendant from visiting
Yellowstone National Park or joining an adult gym.” Id. Peña Salvador argues
- 21 - No. 81212-2-I/22
that, as in Peterson, the “use of the word ‘or’ renders the interplay between the two
parts of the condition ambiguous.”
The State points to a number of cases in which we have upheld identical or
very similar conditions against vagueness challenges, but it concedes that the
specific argument advanced by Peña Salvador has not been addressed by this
court in a published opinion. However, the State contends that the condition
makes clear that Peña Salvador is to stay away from two types of areas: (1) areas
where children’s activities regularly occur, regardless of whether they are currently
occurring, and (2) areas where children’s activities are currently occurring,
regardless of whether they regularly occur in that location. The nonexclusive,
illustrative list that follows serves to clarify that basic rule. Reading the entire
condition together, the State argues that “the fact that a children’s activity occurred
in a park in the distant past would not be sufficient to bring it within the scope of
Special Condition 17.” The illustrative list in Peterson, by contrast, precedes the
reference to “area[s] in which children are likely to congregate,” rendering it unclear
whether this clause applied to the specific areas listed or only to other areas not
specifically listed. Id.
Reading the condition “in a commonsense way and in the context of the
other conditions,”3 the scope of the prohibited conduct is sufficiently clear.
Although the condition does not specify how often an activity must occur to qualify
as a “regular” occurrence, a commonsense reading makes clear that, in Peña
Salvador’s example, the youth activities would be too remote to bring the conduct
3 Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d at 245.
- 22 - No. 81212-2-I/23
within the scope of the condition. The condition does not specify the exact
boundaries of the prohibited conduct but is not impermissibly vague.
C. Supervision Fees
Peña Salvador also challenges the imposition of a community custody
condition requiring him to “[p]ay supervision fees as determined by DOC.” He
argues both that RCW 10.01.160(3) forbids the imposition of these fees on an
indigent defendant and that the record demonstrates that the court did not intend
to impose the fees. He contends that the requirement that he pay for supervision
should be stricken from the judgment and sentence.
The State maintains that supervision fees may be imposed lawfully on an
indigent defendant but agrees that the fees are waivable. However, the State
contends that the record is unclear regarding whether the trial court intended to
impose the discretionary supervision fees. Because the State concedes that the
case should be remanded to address other sentencing issues, it requests that we
direct the trial court to clarify its intent regarding the supervision fees on remand
and strike them if appropriate.
Community custody supervision fees are discretionary legal financial
obligations (LFOs) that are waivable by the trial court. State v. Dillon, 12 Wn. App.
2d 133, 152, 456 P.3d 1199 (2020). Where the record demonstrates that the trial
court intended to impose only mandatory LFOs but inadvertently imposed
supervision fees, it is appropriate for us to strike the condition of community
custody requiring these fees. See id. In State v. Dillon, we concluded that the trial
court had inadvertently imposed the supervision fees when it waived all other
- 23 - No. 81212-2-I/24
discretionary LFOs, imposed only the “truly mandatory” victim penalty assessment,
and did not mention supervision fees at sentencing. Id.
During Peña Salvador’s sentencing, the court briefly referenced LFOs after
announcing the term of incarceration and community custody: “I will impose credit
for time served. No contact with L.O. and J.O. Restitution to be determined.
Mandatory court costs. No non-mandatory court costs. I will impose the standard
conditions for the Department of Corrections.” Peña Salvador inquired about the
LFOs later in the hearing:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the Defendant was asking about the fines, indicating that he has no way to pay, and I was just wondering if there is a way to get any of the fines waived. I understand so far it’s only about six hundred dollars.
THE COURT: Those are mandatory court costs that are not waivable (sic) by the Court. It is five hundred dollars for the victim penalty assessment and one hundred dollars for the DNA fee.
The State argues that the court’s intent is unclear because of its use of the
term “court costs,” which it argues does not apply to supervision fees, and because
it specified that it would impose the standard conditions of community custody.
However, this situation is analogous to that in Dillon: the trial court stated that it
intended to impose only the mandatory victim penalty and DNA fees and did not
discuss supervision fees at all. As in Dillon, it appears that the trial court here
intended to waive all discretionary LFOs and imposed supervision fees
inadvertently as a result of the boilerplate language contained in the document.
Therefore, it is appropriate to strike the condition requiring payment of the
supervision fees from the judgment and sentence.
- 24 - No. 81212-2-I/25
Remanded for reconsideration of the condition prohibiting contact with any
minors in light of Peña Salvador’s right to parent his biological children and to strike
the condition requiring payment of the supervision fees from the judgment and
sentence.4 Jury verdict is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
4Peña Salvador also requests that we remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the judgment and sentence. The State agrees that, on remand, the trial court should correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that count two occurred on “03/20/2012 through 03/19/2015.”
- 25 -