Personal Restraint Petition Of Aaron David Adams (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II 2015 MAR 31 AM 8: 38 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of No. 46403 -9 -II the Personal Restraint Petition of AARON DAVID ADAMS, Petitioner. UNPUBLISHED OPINION Aaron D. Adams seeks relief from personal restraint imposed BJORGEN, A.C. J. — following his 2009 convictions of first and second degree child molestation. He claims that his restraint is unlawful because several of the terms and conditions of his community custody are unlawful. Specifically, he challenges conditions prohibiting him from consuming alcohol or drugs, using the internet, purchasing, consuming, or possessing alcohol, requiring plethysmograph testing when ordered to do so, not possessing or perusing pornography, and avoiding bars, taverns, casinos, and cocktail lounges. 1 We strike the pornography condition and remand for resentencing on that condition alone. 1 Petitioner has withdrawn his challenge to the condition restricting his contact with his daughter. No. 46403 -9 -II RCW 10. 73. 090( 1) limits judgment and sentence collateral attacks became final on to one year following finality. March 19, 2009. RCW 10. 73. 090( 3). Petitioner' s He filed the present petition in the superior court as a CrR 7. 8 motion on April 23, 2014, well over a year following finality. Thus, his claims are subject to this time bar unless he can rely on an exception in RCW 10. 73. 100 or show that his judgment and sentence is invalid on its face or was rendered by a court without jurisdiction. RCW 10. 73. 090. Petitioner claims that his judgment and sentence is invalid on its face.2 A judgment and sentence is invalid on its face if it evinces the invalidity without further See In Re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861, 866, 50 P. 3d 618 ( 2002). The elaboration. phrase " on its face" includes the documents signed as part of a plea agreement. Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d at 866 n.2 ( citing In re Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 141 Wn.2d 342, 354, 5 P. 3d 1240 2000); In re Pers. Restraint of Thompson, 141 Wn.2d 712, 719, 10 P. 3d 380 ( 2000)). If petitioner must rely on external documents to show facial invalidity, then the judgment and sentence is not facially invalid. In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123, 140, 267 P. 3d 324 ( 2011) ( courts consider charging documents, verdicts, and plea statements but not jury instructions, trial motions, or other documents related to the fairness of the trial). This exemption, however, only allows challenges to the facially invalid defect in the judgment and sentence; it does not bring up otherwise Adams, 178 Wn.2d 417, 424 -25, 309 P. 3d 451 ( 2013). untimely claims. In re Pers. Restraint of Only petitioner' s challenge to the condition 2 Petitioner suggests that RCW 10. 73. 100( 5) applies, but it does not because the superior court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction. In re Pers. Restraint of Vehlewald, 92 Wn. App. 197, 20102, 963 P. 2d 903 ( 1998) ( that the sentencing court interpreted the law incorrectly does not mean that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction). 2 No. 46403 -9 -II that he not possess or peruse pornographic material is facially invalid because it delegates the definition of pornography to his therapist and /or community corrections officer. See State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 758, 193 P. 3d 678 ( 2008) ( community corrections officers makes the delegating condition the definition " unconstitutionally pornographic" vague). to the None of the other conditions he complains of consist of defects evident on the face of the judgment and sentence as they are not apparent from the judgment and sentence itself or the documents he signed as part of the plea agreement. We remand to the superior court to correct condition 22 of the community custody conditions of his judgment and sentence. All other claims are denied as time barred. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06.040, it is so ordered. We concur: 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
