In re Pers. Restraint of Winton
196 Wash. 2d 270
| Wash. | 2020Background
- In 2007 Winton pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree child molestation and one count of third-degree child molestation; he received an indeterminate sentence; the victims live in Clark County.
- The Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) granted conditional release in 2014 and imposed geographic restrictions, eventually narrowing them to require Winton to obtain prior written approval before entering Clark County (permission later limited to cases where Clark County is his final destination).
- Winton filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) arguing the Clark County restriction unconstitutionally burdened his fundamental right to travel because it interfered with his travel to Oregon via I-5.
- The Court of Appeals granted the PRP, applying strict scrutiny to the travel restriction and vacating the condition.
- The Washington Supreme Court reversed: it held that persons on community custody remain under state custody with a diminished right to travel, strict scrutiny does not apply, and the ISRB’s Clark County preapproval condition was a permissible, crime-related exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Clark County travel condition implicate a fundamental right to travel requiring strict scrutiny? | Winton: yes; condition burdens fundamental right; strict scrutiny required. | State/ISRB: no; conviction and community custody curtail travel rights; statute authorizes restrictions. | Court: no strict scrutiny; travel right diminished during custody/community custody; statutory standard governs. |
| Did the ISRB have authority to impose the geographic restriction? | Winton: ISRB exceeded authority; condition not linked to crime. | ISRB: broad statutory discretion to impose crime-related community custody conditions. | Court: ISRB had authority; condition relates to victims in Clark County. |
| Was the condition manifestly unreasonable or an abuse of discretion? | Winton: condition unduly burdens interstate travel to visit family. | ISRB: condition is limited (not an absolute ban), protects victims, and allows preapproval. | Court: condition reasonably related to crime, recidivism risk, and public safety; not manifestly unreasonable. |
| Should the PRP remove the condition? | Winton: remove geographic restriction. | State: uphold condition. | Court: PRP dismissed; condition upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Harvey, 718 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1983) (parolee travel restriction upheld; conviction substantially curtails travel right)
- Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1981) (conviction can qualify/limit right to travel)
- State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (1993) (crime-related sentencing prohibitions reviewed for manifest unreasonableness)
- State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (2008) (community custody conditions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123 (2011) (PRP legal questions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671 (2018) (reasonable relationship test for community custody conditions)
- State v. Ross, 129 Wn.2d 279 (1996) (community custody limits constitutional rights subject to SRA)