Personal Restraint Petition Of Shawn E. Ennis
56162-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2022Background
- Petitioner Shawn Ennis pleaded guilty in 2019 to three counts of first-degree incest and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor; judgment and sentence was entered March 25, 2019.
- Ennis filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) on September 7, 2021, challenging several community-custody conditions imposed at sentencing.
- He challenged conditions including prohibitions/monitoring for alcohol (5,6), nonprescribed controlled substances (7), polygraph testing (10), bans on sexually explicit material (11), a blanket ban on internet-capable electronic devices and internet access (15), and delegation of conditions to DOC (17).
- The State argued the PRP was time barred under RCW 10.73.090 because the petition was filed more than one year after the judgment became final; Ennis contended the judgment is facially invalid, invoking the exception to the time bar.
- The State conceded that the blanket internet/electronic-device prohibition (condition 15) is facially invalid; the court accepted that concession, granted relief in part, and remanded to modify condition 15. The remainder of the petition and request for counsel were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Ennis' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / facial invalidity of judgment | The challenged custody conditions render the judgment facially invalid, so the one-year PRP time bar does not apply | PRP is time barred because filed >1 year after final judgment; no applicable statutory exception | Court treated petition as time barred unless facial invalidity shown; Ennis argued facial invalidity for the conditions he challenged |
| Alcohol prohibition and monitoring (conds. 5 & 6) | Blanket alcohol ban and monitoring are overbroad/invalid | Court may prohibit alcohol and require monitoring under RCW authority for custody conditions | Held valid: court may restrict alcohol and order monitoring even if offense did not involve alcohol |
| Controlled substances, polygraph, and sexual-material ban (conds. 7, 10, 11) | These conditions are overbroad/vague or unconstitutional | Statutory authority permits restrictions on nonprescribed controlled substances; polygraph for compliance; restrictions on sexually explicit material are not unconstitutionally vague | Held valid: conditions 7, 10, and 11 are not facially invalid under controlling precedent |
| Blanket internet/electronic-device ban and delegation to DOC (conds. 15 & 17) | Blanket ban on internet-capable devices/access is facially invalid and overbroad; delegation must be limited | State conceded condition 15 is facially invalid but defended delegation to DOC for some conditions | Court accepted concession: remanded to modify condition 15 to be constitutionally valid; delegation to DOC (cond. 17) is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Hemenway, 147 Wn.2d 529 (2002) (explains facial invalidity standard for PRPs)
- State v. Jones, 118 Wn. App. 199 (2003) (upholds alcohol prohibitions as valid community custody conditions)
- State v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326 (1998) (permits polygraph examinations for compliance purposes)
- State v. Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (2010) (addresses limits/abrogation of prior polygraph authority on other grounds)
- State v. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671 (2018) (holds restrictions on sexually explicit material are not unconstitutionally vague)
- State v. McWilliams, 177 Wn. App. 139 (2013) (permits delegation of community custody conditions to DOC)
- State v. Johnson, 197 Wn.2d 740 (2021) (indicates a blanket ban on internet use may be facially invalid)
- State v. Geyer, 19 Wn. App. 2d 321 (2021) (addresses internet restriction concerns and filters as alternatives)