State Of Washington, Respondent V. Atalani Tili, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 52133-4-II
Respondent.
vs. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ATALANI TILI,
Appellant.
MAXA, P.J. – Atalani Tili appeals two community custody conditions imposed following
her conviction of first degree manslaughter: that she have no contact with any unrelated child
under the age of 13 and no contact with any child under the age of 5. She argues that these
conditions violate her federal and state constitutional rights to free association and assembly.
We hold that the conditions are reasonable restrictions on Tili’s liberty. Accordingly, we affirm
the imposition of the challenged community custody conditions.
FACTS
In February 2017, Tili had been caring for a family friend’s two-year-old son when the
child bit her hand and would not let go. Tili jerked her hand back and in doing so pushed the
child backwards and the child fell, hitting his head on an exposed hinge on a dresser. Tili knew
the child was not acting normally that night but thought that he would get better after sleeping.
The following morning, the child collapsed when Tili was trying to dress him. The child died 10
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 12, 2020

No. 52133-4-II
2
days later in the hospital having suffered a head injury, a stroke, severe swelling in the brain, and
enduring two surgeries.
Tili pleaded guilty to first degree manslaughter. The trial court sentenced her to 102
months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody, and imposed community custody
conditions. The two community custody conditions relevant here provide: (1) “No contact with
unrelated minors under age 13”; and (2) “No contact with any child under 5 after release from
custody, whether related or unrelated. May have contact with her children while she is
incarcerated.” Clerk’s Papers at 57. Tili appeals the trial court’s imposition of these two
community custody conditions.
ANALYSIS
A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
We review the imposition of crime-related prohibitions for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Wallmuller, 194 Wn.2d 234, 238, 449 P.3d 619 (2019). We will reverse only if the decision is
manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d
782, 791-92, 239 P.3d 1059 (2010). However, imposing an unconstitutional condition is always
an abuse of discretion. Id. at 792.
As part of a term of community custody, a sentencing court has authority to order
offenders to “[r]efrain from direct or indirect contact with the victim of the crime or a specified
class of individuals,” RCW 9.94A.703(3)(b)1, and to “[c]omply with any crime-related
prohibitions.” RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). Tili does not appear to question the trial court’s statutory
authority to impose the challenged conditions.
1 RCW 9.94A.703 was amended in 2018. Because those amendments do not affect our analysis,
we cite to the current version of the statute.

No. 52133-4-II
3
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 4 and 5 of
the Washington Constitution give people the right to freely associate and assemble with others.
Statutorily authorized sentencing conditions may restrict these rights “to the extent it is
reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the state and the public order.” State
v. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 326, 350, 957 P.2d 655 (1998). But “conditions that interfere with
fundamental rights must be sensitively imposed.” State v. Warren, 165 Wn.2d 17, 32, 195 P.3d
940 (2008).
B. ANALYSIS
Tili argues that the challenged community custody conditions violate her rights to free
association and assembly. She claims that the conditions prohibit her from interacting with a
large segment of the population and thereby infringe on a substantial amount of constitutionally
protected conduct. Tili points out that the conditions prevent her from attending events in which
her own children participate, attending gatherings with her extended family, going to church or
to the mall, or even riding a bus. She suggests that the conditions could be narrowed to
prohibiting contact with children when no adults are present.
The question here is whether the conditions are reasonably necessary to accomplish the
State’s essential needs. Riles, 135 Wn.2d at 350. Tili’s reckless conduct of striking the two-
year-old child she was caring for and then not seeking medical care caused the child’s death.
Therefore, there is no question that she poses a risk to children. The conditions the trial court
crafted recognized that the State has a compelling interest in protecting children from harm.
State v. Ancira, 107 Wn. App. 650, 653-54, 27 P.3d 1246 (2001); see also State v. Corbett, 158
Wn. App. 576, 597-601, 242 P.3d 52 (2010) (restricting contact with all children was a
reasonable restriction where defendant was convicted of raping his young stepdaughter).

No. 52133-4-II
4
Because Tili’s recklessness ended the life of a toddler, we conclude that these conditions are not
overbroad but are a reasonable restriction sensitively imposed on Tili to protect children from
harm. Riles, 135 Wn.2d 347.
In addition, the trial court imposed 36 months of community supervision. These
conditions at issue are in effect only during this period, not for the rest of Tili’s life.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the challenged
community custody conditions.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the two community custody conditions imposed restricting Tili’s contact with
children.
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.
MAXA, P.J.
We concur:
GLASGOW, J.
CRUSER, J.