State of Washington v. Mario Torres
198 Wash. App. 685
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mario Torres was convicted of a witness tampering charge involving his minor son, M.T.
- At sentencing, the court imposed a five-year no-contact order prohibiting most personal contact with M.T.
- The no-contact order was imposed without adequately explaining why it was reasonably necessary to restrain parental contact.
- The trial court did not tailor the order or consider less restrictive alternatives; the record was sparse on reasoning.
- The Court remands to reconsider the no-contact order and, on remand, to address discretionary LFOs and parenting considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the no-contact order infringes the parental-rights and requires careful tailoring. | Torres | Torres | Remand for reconsideration with sensitive tailoring |
| Whether the trial court adequately justified necessity and narrow scope of the no-contact order. | Torres | Torres | Remand to perform proper, individualized analysis |
| Whether the no-contact order should be limited, considering less restrictive alternatives and changing needs over time. | Torres | State | Remand to consider alternatives and potential time-based adjustments |
| Whether a remand is required to address discretionary LFOs with an individualized inquiry. | Torres | State | Remand for individualized LFO inquiry |
| Whether the plea recantation/new evidence argument justifies relief on a personal restraint petition. | Torres | State | Denied; petition rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17 (2008) (crime-related sentencing conditions must be sensitively imposed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Rainey, 168 Wn.2d 367 (2010) (no-contact orders must balance state interests with parental rights)
- State v. Howard, 182 Wn. App. 91 (2014) (no-contact orders must be nuanced and reasonably tailored)
- State v. Ancira, 107 Wn. App. 650 (2001) (parent-child issues considered in context of restrictions)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (individualized inquiry required for discretionary LFOs)
- State v. Stenson, 142 Wn.2d 710 (2001) (standards for ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. McFarland, 73 Wn. App. 57 (1994) (strategic decisions in plea vs suppression context)