Full Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two November 10, 2026 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: No. 61115-5-II RICHARD JAC RATLIFF, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Petitioner. LEE, P.J. — In his personal restraint petition (PRP), Richard J. Ratliff challenges several community custody conditions imposed by the trial court in his judgment and sentence, as well as certain community custody conditions imposed by the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (ISRB). By order of this court, many of Ratliff’s challenges have been dismissed, but community custody conditions 20 and 27 imposed by the trial court in his judgment and sentence and the challenged conditions imposed by the ISRB were sent to a panel of judges for consideration. We hold that conditions 20 and 27 imposed by the trial court in Ratliff’s judgment and sentence should be modified or stricken. We also hold that the ISRB did not abuse its discretion in imposing the community custody conditions challenged by Ratliff. Therefore, we grant in part and deny in part Ratliff’s PRP. FACTS In 2013, Ratliff pleaded guilty to one count of first degree rape of a child and one count of second degree assault. Ratliff’s crimes were committed in 2011-2012 and involved the minor children of his two brothers’ fiancées. No. 61115-5-II The trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 170 months to life in custody and community custody for life based on the first degree rape of a child conviction. In addition, the trial court imposed the community custody conditions now challenged. First, the trial court imposed a condition that Ratliff must “[i]nform [his] community corrections officer of any romantic relationships to verify there is no victim-age children involved.” PRP at 32 (condition 20). Second, the trial court imposed a condition that Ratliff “shall not have access to the Internet at any location nor shall [Ratliff] have access to computers unless otherwise approved by the Court. [Ratliff] also [is] prohibited from joining or perusing any public social websites (Facebook, MySpace, etc.).” PRP at 32 (condition 27). Ratliff remained incarcerated until May 2025, when the ISRB found him releasable, and Ratliff was released to community custody. As part of the conditions of his release, the ISRB imposed the following community custody conditions that are now being challenged: D. You must not engage in a dating or sexual relationship(s) with any person who has care or custody of minor aged child(ren), unless approved by the field case manager and the ISRB. All dating and sexual relationships require prior field case manager verification that the person is aware of your sexual offense history. E. You must not enter places where minor children tend to congregate, including but not limited to shopping malls, schools, playgrounds, public pools, skating rinks, video arcades/gaming stores without prior approval from your field case manager. F. You must not possess or access sexually explicit materials. Sexually explicit materials consist of any written, visual, or audio material that is reasonably intended, produced, or used for the purpose of sexual gratification which displays, portrays, depicts, or describes: a) Nudity, which includes, but is not limited to, exposed/visible (in whole or part, including under or through translucent/thin materials providing intimate physical detail) genitals/genitalia, anus, buttocks and/or female/transgender breast nipple(s); b) A sex act which includes, but is not limited to, genital- 2 No. 61115-5-II genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact/penetration, genital or anal contact/penetration with an inanimate object, masturbation and/or bodily excretory behavior; c) Sadistic/masochistic abuse, bondage, bestiality, and/or participant who appears to be nonconsenting, dominated, degraded, humiliated, or in a submissive role, and/or a participant who appears to be acting in a forceful, threatening, dominating, or violent manner; and/or d) A minor, or a model or cartoon depicting a minor, in a sexually suggestive setting/pose/attire. G. You must not access the internet without developing a signed Board Electronic Device Inventory and Internet Search Requirement form, approved by your field case manager that includes a list of all internet- capable devices in your possession or that you have access to. You must install any special software on your phone and computer required by your field case manager in order to monitor your compliance with internet- related conditions imposed by the court and/or the ISRB. Phone and computer systems must be compatible with monitoring software. Internet capable systems such as Smart TVs and gaming systems can be approved by your field case manager with the presence of a safety plan (the steps taken that address how you will ensure you are NOT engaging in prohibited acts). H. You must submit to a polygraph examination to be conducted by a polygraph examiner certified by the American Polygraph Association at the discretion of your field case manager to verify compliance with your release conditions. A failure to show up for a scheduled polygraph and/or attempts to use countermeasures as determined by the polygraph examiner may result in sanctions. You must sign a full release of information allowing the polygraph examiner to release information to your field case manager and the ISRB for the entire period of your supervision until you are granted a final discharge, or this condition is removed by the Board. In agreeing to release under this condition, both the ISRB and the offender stipulate that the results of any polygraph examination shall be admissible in any violation hearings held before the ISRB. PRP at 34-35 (some capitalization omitted). On July 8, 2025, Ratliff filed a motion to modify community custody conditions in his judgment and sentence under CrR 7.8(b). Ratliff also moved to modify or strike several of the 3 No. 61115-5-II community custody conditions imposed by the ISRB. The trial court ordered that Ratliff’s petition be transferred to this court as a PRP because it appeared to be time-barred under RCW 10.73.090. By order, the Chief Judge of this court dismissed several of Ratliff’s challenges to the community custody conditions imposed by the trial court in his judgment and sentence.1 However, the order directed Ratliff’s challenge to conditions 20 and 27 to a panel of judges for consideration.2 The order also directed Ratliff’s challenge to the conditions imposed by the ISRB to a panel of judges for consideration. ANALYSIS A. COURT-ORDERED COMMUNITY CUSTODY CONDITIONS IN JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 1. Legal Principles We review court-ordered community custody conditions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672, 677, 416 P.3d 712 (2018). A trial court may only impose community 1 Specifically, the Chief Judge of this court provided that the claims in his petition regarding the community custody conditions imposed in Ratliff’s judgment and sentence are time barred unless Ratliff establishes that one of the time-bar exceptions set out in RCW 10.73.100 applies, or that his judgment and sentence is facially invalid or was not rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Amend. Ord. Dismiss, in Part and Referring to Panel in Part at 3 (Apr. 3, 2026). Thus, the Chief Judge concluded that Ratliff’s challenges to community custody conditions 14, 15, 18, 21, and 23 in his judgment and sentence are time-barred because Ratliff primarily argues that these conditions are not crime-related. 2 Because Ratliff’s challenges to conditions 20 and 27 involve constitutional challenges, Ratliff appears to argue that his judgment and sentence is facially invalid. See In re Pers. Restraint of Flippo, 187 Wn.2d 106, 110, 385 P.3d 128 (2016) (A judgment and sentence is facially invalid if the trial judge exceeded its authority.). 4 No. 61115-5-II custody conditions as authorized by statute. State v. Kolesnik, 146 Wn. App. 790, 806, 192 P.3d 937 (2008), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1050 (2009). Under RCW 9.94A.703(3)(f),3 a trial court has discretion to require that an offender “[c]omply with any crime-related prohibitions.” State v. Land, 172 Wn. App. 593, 605, 295 P.3d 782, review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1016 (2013). “Crime-related prohibitions” are “order[s] of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10).4 A trial court does not abuse its discretion if there is a reasonable relationship between the crime of conviction and the imposed condition. State v. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d 671, 684, 425 P.3d 847 (2018). Further, “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance with the order of a court may be required by the department.” RCW 9.94A.030(10). 2. Inform CCO of Romantic Relationships Condition 20 in Appendix H to Ratliff’s judgment and sentence provides that Ratliff must: [i]nform your community corrections officer of any romantic relationships to verify there is no victim-age children involved. PRP at 32. Ratliff argues that this condition should be stricken “because there is no guideline that explains what is romantic” and because the condition is not crime-related. PRP at 26. The State concedes that the term “romantic relationship” is unconstitutionally vague and does not object to 3 Former RCW 9.94A.703 (2011) was in effect at the time of the crime. However, because no substantive changes to the statute have been made affecting our analysis, we cite to the current version. 4 Former RCW 9.94A.030 (2011) was in effect at the time of the crime. However, because no substantive changes to the statute have been made affecting our analysis, we cite to the current version. 5 No. 61115-5-II modification of the condition to replace “romantic relationship” with “dating relationship.” We accept the State’s concession. Although courts may impose crime-related prohibitions as conditions of a sentence, due process “requires that citizens have fair warning of proscribed conduct.” State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 752, 193 P.3d 678 (2008). Accordingly, community custody conditions that do not provide warning of the proscribed conduct are unconstitutionally vague. The Washington Supreme Court previously stated that the term “romantic” is subjective but that the term “dating relationship” is more definite. Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 683. Accordingly, our Supreme Court held that “dating relationship” is not an unconstitutionally vague term. Id. Moreover, contrary to Ratliff’s assertion, the condition is reasonably related to Ratliff’s crime because it requires that Ratliff inform his CCO of romantic relationships to ensure no victim-aged children are involved, and Ratliff was convicted of rape of a child. Thus, we accept the State’s concession and remand to the trial court with instructions to modify condition 20 by replacing the term “romantic relationship” with “dating relationship.” 3. No Internet Access without Court Approval Condition 27 in Appendix H of Ratliff’s judgment and sentence states: You shall not have access to the Internet at any location nor shall you have access to computers unless otherwise approved by the Court. You also are prohibited from joining or perusing any public social websites (Facebook, MySpace, etc.). PRP at 32. Ratliff argues that condition 27 violates his First Amendment rights because the condition is not crime-related. The State concedes that condition 27 is overbroad and does not object to having condition 27 remanded to the trial court to modify the language. 6 No. 61115-5-II Here, there is no indication that the internet played any role in Ratliff’s crimes. Because there is no evidence that internet use was related to Ratliff’s crimes, condition 27 is not crime- related. Thus, we remand to the trial court with instructions to strike condition 27. B. ISRB CONDITIONS 1. Legal Principles We review community custody conditions imposed by the ISRB for an abuse of discretion. In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 196 Wn.2d 270, 278, 474 P.3d 532 (2020). Under RCW 9.95.420, the ISRB has statutory authority to impose community custody conditions as provided in RCW 9.94A.704.5 When imposing community custody conditions, the ISRB must comply with the statutory definition of ‘community custody’ under RCW 9.94A.704: “‘Community custody’” means that portion of an offender’s sentence subject to controls including crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions from the court, the board, or the department of corrections based on risk to community safety, that is served under supervision in the community, and which may be modified or revoked for violations of release conditions. Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 276 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original) (quoting RCW 9.95.0001(2)). As previously discussed, a crime-related prohibition is “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.” RCW 9.94A.030(10); RCW 9.95.0001(3). Thus, “the relevant inquiry is whether the imposed condition is ‘crime-related,’ meaning it is reasonably related to the crime, the offender’s 5 Former RCW 9.95.420 (2011) and former RCW 9.94A.704 (2011) were in effect at the time of the crime. See In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 1 Wn.3d 882, 900, 533 P.3d 875 (2023). However, because no substantive changes to the statutes have been made affecting our analysis, we cite to the current version of these statutes. 7 No. 61115-5-II risk of reoffense, and the protection of public safety.” Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 278; RCW 9.94A.704(10)(c)(i)-(iii). 2. Dating or Sexual Relationships Condition D provides: D. You must not engage in a dating or sexual relationship(s) with any person who has care or custody of minor aged child(ren), unless approved by the field case manager and the ISRB. All dating and sexual relationships require prior field case manager verification that the person is aware of your sexual offense history. PRP at 34. Ratliff argues that condition D should be stricken because he has “never been in a relationship with a female” and “[t]he fact that he would choose one that does not have kids or custody of kids would cause this condition to not be crime related.” PRP at 27. But Ratliff committed his crimes against children, who he gained access to through his brothers’ relationships. Moreover, Ratliff may begin a dating or sexual relationship with adults who have close relationships with minors despite not having custody of minor children. Thus, condition D reasonably relates to Ratliff’s crime, his risk of reoffense, and the safety of the community. The ISRB did not abuse its discretion. 3. Places Where Minor Children Congregate Condition E states: E. You must not enter places where minor children tend to congregate, including but not limited to shopping malls, schools, playgrounds, public pools, skating rinks, video arcades/gaming stores without prior approval from your field case manager. PRP at 34. 8 No. 61115-5-II Ratliff contends that this condition is not crime-related because “Ratliff’s crime did not happen in any of the areas listed” and requests that this court modify condition E to establish a schedule or require an “accountability partner” for Ratliff to enter places where minors tend to congregate. PRP at 28 (italics omitted). However, condition E is reasonably related to Ratliff’s crime of child rape. Ratliff committed his crimes against children, so prohibiting Ratliff from visiting places oriented towards children is reasonably related to his crime, his risk of reoffense, and public safety. Moreover, Ratliff cites no authority that would entitle him to a modified schedule or companion to visit places where minor children tend to congregate. See Christian v. Tohmeh, 191 Wn. App. 709, 727-28, 366 P.3d 16 (2015) (“[T]his court does not review issues not argued, briefed, or supported with citation to authority.”), review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1035 (2016); RAP 10.3(a)(6). The ISRB did not abuse its discretion in imposing condition E. 4. No Sexually Explicit Materials Condition F provides: F. You must not possess or access sexually explicit materials. Sexually explicit materials consist of any written, visual, or audio material that is reasonably intended, produced, or used for the purpose of sexual gratification which displays, portrays, depicts, or describes: a) Nudity, which includes, but is not limited to, exposed/visible (in whole or part, including under or through translucent/thin materials providing intimate physical detail) genitals/genitalia, anus, buttocks and/or female/transgender breast nipple(s); b) A sex act which includes, but is not limited to, genital- genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal contact/penetration, genital or anal contact/penetration with an inanimate object, masturbation and/or bodily excretory behavior; c) Sadistic/masochistic abuse, bondage, bestiality, and/or participant who appears to be nonconsenting, dominated, degraded, humiliated, or in a submissive role, and/or a participant who appears to be acting in a forceful, threatening, dominating, or violent manner; and/or d) A minor, or a model or cartoon depicting a minor, in a sexually suggestive setting/pose/attire. 9 No. 61115-5-II PRP at 34. Ratliff argues that this condition should be stricken because “there is no evidence to suggest that such materials were related to or contributed to his crime.” PRP at 28. However, the ISRB is authorized to impose conditions that are “reasonably related to the crime, the offender’s risk of reoffense, and the protection of public safety.” Winton, 196 Wn.2d at 278. Here, the prohibition on sexually explicit materials is reasonably related to Ratliff’s crime of child rape. As the court in Nguyen noted, a prohibition on sexually explicit materials was reasonably related to Nguyen’s crimes of child rape and molestation because the crimes “established his inability to control his sexual urges,” so it is “logical and reasonable to conclude that a convicted person who cannot suppress sexual urges should be prohibited from accessing ‘sexually explicit materials.’” Nguyen, 191 Wn.2d at 686. Moreover, the prohibition is reasonably related to the risk of reoffense, as the materials may trigger the risk of reoffense. See id. at 685. Accordingly, the ISRB did not abuse its discretion in imposing condition F. 5. Internet Monitoring Condition G states: G. You must not access the internet without developing a signed Board Electronic Device Inventory and internet Search Requirement form, approved by your field case manager that includes a list of all internet- capable devices in your possession or that you have access to. You must install any special software on your phone and computer required by your field case manager in order to monitor your compliance with internet- related conditions imposed by the court and/or the ISRB. Phone and computer systems must be compatible with monitoring software. Internet capable systems such as Smart TVs and gaming systems can be approved by your field case manager with the presence of a safety plan (the steps taken that address how you will ensure you are not engaging in prohibited acts). 10 No. 61115-5-II PRP at 35 (some capitalization omitted). Ratliff contends that this condition should be stricken because it is not crime-related. The ISRB contends that “Ratliff’s condition expressly specifies the nexus between the condition and monitoring his ‘compliance with internet-related conditions imposed by the court and/or the ISRB.” Resp. of ISRB at 23. We agree with the ISRB. Condition G provides for affirmative acts that allow for monitoring to ensure that Ratliff is in compliance with community custody conditions, such as condition F related to sexually explicit materials. Accordingly, the ISRB did not abuse its discretion in imposing condition G. 6. Polygraph Examination Condition H states: H. You must submit to a polygraph examination to be conducted by a polygraph examiner certified by the American Polygraph Association at the discretion of your field case manager to verify compliance with your release conditions. A failure to show up for a scheduled polygraph and/or attempts to use countermeasures as determined by the polygraph examiner may result in sanctions. You must sign a full release of information allowing the polygraph examiner to release information to your field case manager and the ISRB for the entire period of your supervision until you are granted a final discharge, or this condition is removed by the Board. In agreeing to release under this condition, both the ISRB and the offender stipulate that the results of any polygraph examination shall be admissible in any violation hearings held before the ISRB. PRP at 35 (some capitalization omitted). Ratliff concedes that polygraph testing is acceptable to monitor compliance while he is in aftercare treatment, but after treatment is completed, polygraph testing becomes affirmative conduct that is not crime-related. Contrary to Ratliff’s contention, Washington courts have concluded that polygraph testing is a permissible means to monitor compliance with community 11 No. 61115-5-II custody conditions. State v. Olsen, 189 Wn.2d 118, 130, 399 P.3d 1141 (2017); State v. Combs, 102 Wn. App. 949, 952, 10 P.3d 1101 (2000). And here, condition H provides that polygraph testing is used to verify compliance with Ratliff’s release conditions. Accordingly, Ratliff’s challenge fails. CONCLUSION We remand to the trial court to modify the language in condition 20 and strike condition 27 in the judgment and sentence, and we affirm the challenged conditions imposed by the ISRB. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part Ratliff’s PRP. 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. Lee, P.J. We concur: Glasgow, J. Che, J. 12