In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: Gregorio Alaniz, 39631-2

Gregorio Alaniz pleaded guilty to first degree rape of a child in 2012 and received a sentence of 93 months to life, along with 34 community custody conditions.
In 2023, Alaniz filed a Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) challenging several community custody conditions as unconstitutional or not crime related.
The court addressed whether some challenges were procedurally time barred under Washington law regarding collateral attacks more than one year after sentencing.
Some conditions were found to possibly be facially invalid, specifically those that lacked clear standards or exceeded statutory authority.
The State conceded to amending certain conditions in response to Alaniz’s arguments, while disputing others.
The Court remanded the case to the trial court to amend or strike specific conditions found to be vague, overbroad, or lacking legal basis.

Issue	Alaniz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Condition 13: Mandatory polygraph/plethysmograph	Plethysmograph testing is unconstitutional outside of treatment, polygraph vague	Condition valid but must be for treatment; polygraph is proper for monitoring	Remand to limit plethysmograph to treatment; clarify polygraph scope
Condition 15: Avoid places where children congregate (incl. sporting events)	Vague and overbroad	Sporting events provision too broad, rest is clear	Amend to only preclude youth sporting events; rest upheld
Condition 9: Remain within CCO set boundaries	Vague and unconstitutionally broad	Agrees to clarify standards	Remand to provide ascertainable standards
Condition 20: Report romantic/sexual relationships	"Romantic relationship" term vague	Agrees term is vague	Amend from "romantic" to "dating"
Condition 29: Submit to searches by CCO	Overbroad, violates privacy	Agrees, suggests limiting standard	Amend to require reasonable suspicion
Condition 4: No controlled substances + urinalysis	Violates privacy, not justified	Authorized, tailored to compliance	Upheld as valid
Condition 5: Pay supervision fees	Unlawful due to indigence and statutory changes	No facial invalidity, claim time barred	Challenge time barred, not addressed
Conditions 18, 27, 28: Alcohol and adult business restrictions	Not crime related	Condition 27 valid by statute; 18, 28 time barred	Challenge to 18 & 28 time barred; 27 valid

State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326 (plethysmograph testing limited to treatment purposes)
State v. Combs, 102 Wn. App. 949 (polygraph testing for compliance is constitutional)
State v. Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d 234 (conditions on avoiding places where children congregate not unconstitutionally vague)
State v. Cornwell, 190 Wn.2d 296 (CCO searches require reasonable suspicion)
State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (community custody conditions cannot grant unlimited discretion to CCOs)