State of Washington v. Stephen C. Perez, 37053-4

In July 2017 Perez responded to a Craigslist "casual encounters" ad posted by an undercover officer posing as a 13‑year‑old girl (“Anna”).
The chat and texts included explicit sexual requests, negotiation of $50 for oral sex, discussion of anal sex, age disclosure (“I’m 13”), and Perez asking twice whether she was an undercover officer.
Perez sent a selfie from a 7‑Eleven, bought a banana and the requested Slurpee, and drove toward the meet location in a white truck where police stopped and arrested him.
Police executed a vehicle search and found the banana, Slurpee, an unopened box of condoms, and $103 cash; Perez admitted at trial he had asked the purported 13‑year‑old for a blow job.
A jury convicted Perez of attempted second‑degree rape of a child and communicating with a minor for immoral purposes; he was sentenced to 84 months to life and appealed, challenging evidentiary sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence shows Perez knew/believed the perceived victim was under 14	State: the ad language, Anna’s statement she was 13, Perez’s questions about an undercover officer and referring to “her” show he received age info	Perez: insufficient proof he knew she was under 14	Held: Sufficient — publication/receipt satisfied; jury could find he knew she was 13
Whether Perez intended to have sexual intercourse with the perceived victim	State: explicit sexual chat (oral/anal), price agreed, prior use of site for hookups, admissions at trial show intent	Perez: claimed he only intended to chat and deliver a Slurpee	Held: Sufficient — messages, negotiations, and admissions support intent
Whether Perez took a substantial step toward commission of the crime	State: traveled to meet, sent selfie from 7‑Eleven, bought requested items, had condoms and cash	Perez: argued actions were innocent (chat/delivery)	Held: Sufficient — travel, purchase, and possessions constituted substantial step
Additional grounds (impossibility, ineffective assistance, entrapment, motion‑to‑dismiss waiver)	State: crimes do not require a real minor; waiver rule applies but sufficiency reviewed	Perez: raised impossibility, IAC, entrapment, argued trial court erred denying motion to dismiss	Held: Rejected impossibility; declined to review IAC/entrapment for lack of record/authority; noted Allan waiver rule but reviewed sufficiency anyway

State v. Allan, 88 Wn.2d 394 (Wash. 1977) (defendant who presents evidence after denial of motion to dismiss waives appeal of that denial)
State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (Wash. 1992) (legal standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60 (Wash. 1990) (credibility and conflicting testimony are for the trier of fact)
State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821 (Wash. 2004) (court must defer to jury on persuasiveness of evidence)
State v. Johnson, 173 Wn.2d 895 (Wash. 2012) (in sting cases prosecution must prove publication and receipt of victim’s age and intent; governs perceived‑victim analysis)
State v. Elliot, 114 Wn.2d 6 (Wash. 1990) (appellate courts may refuse issues lacking citation to record or legal authority)