State of Washington v. Arnulfo Cisneros Sanchez, 34057-1

Background

On June 2, 2014, the victim (Camila Martin) was awakened by a man kissing and pinning her; she escaped and the intruder fled through her bedroom window. She later provided underwear for DNA testing.
The victim initially could not identify her attacker but gave the name Arnulfo Cisneros Sanchez as a possible suspect (he had been at her home earlier that day).
On July 20 and again in February 2015 the victim saw Sanchez near or at her home, called police, and on February 14 positively identified him at her window.
Sanchez admitted at trial that he entered the bedroom and had sex with the victim, claiming it was consensual; his defense strategy highlighted the victim’s delayed identification and perceived inconsistencies.
Jury convicted Sanchez of attempted second-degree rape, first-degree burglary with sexual motivation, indecent liberties, and stalking; trial counsel did not object to deputies testifying about the victim’s prior statements to police.
The trial court imposed lifetime community custody for the attempted rape count with a special condition prohibiting Sanchez from entering Grant County; Sanchez appealed convictions and the geographic restriction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to deputies’ testimony recounting victim’s out-of-court statements	State: deputies’ testimony included admissible nonhearsay identification and was consistent with testimony; no error.	Sanchez: deputies’ testimony was hearsay and bolstered the victim’s credibility; counsel should have objected.	Court: No ineffective assistance — some deputy testimony (Feb. 14 ID) was nonhearsay; failure to object to other statements was a reasonable tactical choice tied to defense theory, so no deficient performance shown.
Admissibility of prior statements as nonhearsay identification	State: ER 801(d)(1)(iii) permits prior identification when declarant testifies and is cross-examined.	Sanchez: prior statements went beyond identification and improperly corroborated the victim.	Court: Applied ER 801(d)(1)(iii) to Feb. 14 identification; other prior statements could have strategic value and defense opened the door; admissibility/failure-to-object did not show deficient counsel.
Validity of lifetime ban from Grant County as community custody condition	State: restriction aims to protect the victim and family.	Sanchez: banishment from county infringes right to intrastate travel and is overly broad.	Court: Condition is not narrowly tailored; State concedes error; convictions affirmed but remand for resentencing to tailor restriction.
Standard for review of geographic banishment in community custody	State: restriction justified by victim safety concerns.	Sanchez: strict scrutiny applies; less restrictive means required.	Court: Strict scrutiny applies; must be narrowly tailored to compelling interest; remand ordered for a narrowly tailored order.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-part test)
State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668 (objective standard for attorney performance)
State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741 (presumption of effective assistance; strategic decisions)
State v. Grover, 55 Wn. App. 252 (prior identification to officer can be nonhearsay)
State v. Schimelpfenig, 128 Wn. App. 224 (geographic banishment and right to travel; strict scrutiny)
State v. Sims, 152 Wn. App. 526 (factors for assessing geographic restrictions in community custody)