In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: JonPaul Vincent Solis

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint
of:
JONPAUL VINCENT SOLIS,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 36982-0-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FEARING, J.— JonPaul Solis seeks relief from personal restraint imposed for his
2018 Spokane County conviction on guilty plea to first degree rape of a child and first
degree child molestation. In his petition, Solis challenges three community custody
conditions imposed by the sentencing court. We accept the State’s concession as to one
of the conditions and remand for correction of the judgment and sentence.
FACTS
The State charged JonPaul Solis with first degree rape of a child and first degree
child molestation based on allegations that he repeatedly molested or raped his victim, a
family member. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Solis agreed that the police reports formed
a factual basis for his plea, and the State agreed to recommend an indeterminate sentence
of 120 months to life confinement.
FILED
MARCH 26, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals Division III

No. 36982-0-III
In re Personal Restraint of Solis
2
The superior court accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation
report to assist in imposing a sentence. The report, which relayed the version of the
crime described in the police reports, indicated that JonPaul Solis repeatedly molested or
raped the victim when the two stayed overnight in the same house. The report also stated
that Solis committed his crimes while high on marijuana or synthetic marijuana. The
report further mentioned that Solis reported using the internet to watch adult pornography
films and participating in “sex talk on the internet” in his leisure time. State’s Response
to Personal Restraint Petition, Attach. A-5.
The superior court sentenced JonPaul Solis to 120 months to life confinement as
recommended by the parties. The court also imposed several conditions of community
custody, including the following:
(3) Not consume controlled substances except pursuant to lawfully
issued prescriptions;
(16) That you do not access Internet social networking websites,
Facebook or otherwise, that may be used by minors;
(21) That you not consume or possess marijuana or “Spice”
(synthetic marijuana).
Judgment and Sentence, App. H.
JonPaul Solis did not appeal from the judgment and sentence. He filed this
petition less than one year after the judgment and sentence became final, claiming the

No. 36982-0-III
In re Personal Restraint of Solis
3
sentencing court exceeded its authority when imposing the three community custody
conditions identified above.
ANALYSIS
To prevail in a personal restraint petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that he
was actually and substantially prejudiced either by an error of constitutional magnitude or
by a fundamental nonconstitutional error that caused a complete miscarriage of justice.
In re Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 177 Wn.2d 501, 506, 301 P.3d 450 (2013).
JonPaul Solis contends that condition 16 must be stricken because it is not crime
related and not otherwise authorized by statute. The State concedes.
This court reviews conditions of community custody for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672, 677, 416 P.3d 712 (2018). A community custody
condition is manifestly unreasonable if it is beyond the court’s authority to impose. State
v. Johnson, 184 Wn. App. 777, 779, 340 P.3d 230 (2014).
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA) identifies certain community custody
conditions as mandatory, some as waivable, and others as discretionary. RCW
9.94A.703. Discretionary conditions include orders that an offender “[c]omply with any
crime-related prohibitions.” RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). “Crime-related prohibitions” are
orders “prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for
which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). A court does not abuse
its discretion by imposing a crime related prohibition if there is a “reasonable

No. 36982-0-III
In re Personal Restraint of Solis
4
relationship” between the crime of conviction and community custody condition. State v.
Hai Minh Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 684, 425 P.3d 847 (2018). The court may rely on a
presentence investigation report in imposing a sentencing condition as part of community
custody. State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644, 658, 364 P.3d 830 (2015).
The presentence report contains a factual basis for the crime, based on the police
reports, and a “risk/needs assessment” section. Although the risk/needs portion identifies
JonPaul Solis’s sex-related internet activity, nothing in the report or the remaining record
links Solis’s criminal acts with internet use. Accordingly, we accept the State’s
concession that condition 16 was not authorized by the SRA and agree that it should be
struck. Given that the corrections will involve no exercise of the court’s discretion,
Solis’s presence is not required when striking the condition. See State v. Ramos, 171
Wn.2d 46, 48, 246 P.3d 811 (2011).
JonPaul Solis also challenges conditions 3 and 21 on the basis that they are not
crime related and they are unconstitutionally vague.
Condition 3, prohibiting JonPaul Solis from using all controlled substances
without a valid prescription, is a mandatory condition unless waived by the court. RCW
9.94A.703(2)(c). Condition 21, prohibiting Solis from using marijuana or synthetic
marijuana, is a crime-related prohibition. RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f). The presentence
investigation report specifically notes that Solis was formerly addicted to synthetic
marijuana and was high on marijuana “each time he molested his victim and was high the

No. 36982-0-III
In re Personal Restraint of Solis
5
date of his arrest.” Accordingly, the SRA authorized the sentencing court to impose both
of these conditions.
As to JonPaul Solis’s constitutional challenge to conditions 3 and 21, he claims
they are overly vague when read together. Specifically, he contends the conditions do not
make clear whether a doctor may prescribe medical cannabis to Solis and whether Solis
may lawfully use or possess such a lawfully issued prescription.
Community custody conditions are unconstitutionally vague if they fail to provide
ordinary people fair warning of the proscribed conduct, or fail to establish standards that
are definite enough to protect against arbitrary enforcement. State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d
739, 752-53, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). This court’s review of constitutional questions is de
novo. State v. Wallmuller, 194 Wash. 2d 234, 238, 449 P.3d 619, 621 (2019).
A person of ordinary intelligence could understand the conduct prohibited by the
conditions. JonPaul Solis is prohibited from consuming controlled substances absent a
prescription and is prohibited from ever using or possessing marijuana. Although Solis
claims a medical provider might hypothetically authorize medical marijuana or synthetic
marijuana for treatment, a medical marijuana authorization is not a “prescription” for a
controlled substance. RCW 69.51A.010(1)(c). Accordingly, the conditions are not
inconsistent or contrary to each other, and they contain sufficient definiteness that
ordinary people can understand what conduct is proscribed. Moreover, Solis fails to
demonstrate any danger of arbitrary enforcement. He violates his community custody

No. 36982-0-III
In re Personal Restraint of Solis
6
conditions if he uses or possesses marijuana or synthetic marijuana, regardless of whether
his use or possession was authorized by a medical provider.
CONCLUSION
We remand to the sentencing court to strike community custody condition 16. We
deny JonPaul Solis’s request to also strike conditions 3 and 21.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_____________________________
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Pennell, C.J.
_________________________
Korsmo, J.