Personal Restraint Petition Of Jeffrey Joel Dilks, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In re the Matter of the Personal Restraint of No. 56855-1-II
JEFFERY JOEL DILKS,
Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CRUSER, A.C.J.—In 2016 Jeffery Dilks pleaded guilty to first degree kidnapping and third
degree rape of a child. The resulting judgment and sentence includes a community custody
condition that Dilks shall not “possess or access any sexually explicit material or frequent adult
bookstores, arcades or places where sexual entertainment is provided and shall not access
pornography, sexually explicit materials or any information pertaining to minors via the
computer.” Pet. Exh. 1. It also instructs Dilks, “Do not loiter or frequent places where children
congregate, including but not limited to shopping malls, schools, playgrounds, churches, or video
arcades.” Pet. Exh. 1 [Appx. at 34]. The court sentenced Dilks to the agreed minimum term of 113
months and a maximum term of life on the kidnapping count. As to the child rape count, the court
imposed a 34-month sentence with 36 months of community supervision.
In April 2022, Dilks filed a personal restraint petition arguing that the community custody
restriction on pornography is unlawful and that the total sentence on third degree child rape
exceeds the statutory maximum. The State filed a response conceding that the petition was timely
filed because the judgment and sentence was facially invalid. RCW 10.73.090. Specifically, the
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 16, 2023

No. 56855-1-II
2
State conceded that the pornography restriction was unconstitutionally vague based on State v.
Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 758, 193 P.3d 678 (2008) (“We conclude that the restriction on accessing
or possessing pornographic materials is unconstitutionally vague.”). And the State conceded that
the total sentence imposed on the third degree rape of a child count, including in custody and
supervision, exceeds the statutory maximum for a C class felony.
The acting chief judge referred this petition to a panel of judges and this court appointed
counsel. RCW10.73.150(4). Counsel filed a supplemental brief again arguing that the pornography
restriction is void. The State rested on its previous response.
ANALYSIS
Areas Where Children Congregate
The State’s response does not address the argument that a community custody condition
prohibiting Dilks from frequenting areas where children congregate is void for vagueness, citing
State v. Irwin, 191 Wn. App. 644, 649, 364 P.3d 830 (2015). But the condition at issue in Irwin
did not include examples of prohibited areas. Irwin explained that the condition failed vagueness
analysis because, “[w]ithout some clarifying language or an illustrative list of prohibited locations
. . . the condition does not give ordinary people sufficient notice to ‘understand what conduct is
proscribed.’ ” 191 Wn. App. at 655 (quoting Bahl, 164 Wn.2d at 753). Here, in contrast, the
community custody condition includes a non-exhaustive list of examples. Including this list of
examples ensures that an ordinary person can understand the prohibited conduct. See State v. Starr,
No. 49327-6-II, slip op. at 5-8 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2017) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049327-6-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf
(approving similar condition with list of examples over Irwin objection). In sum, this community

No. 56855-1-II
3
custody condition is not void for vagueness and this claim does not merit relief via personal
restraint petition.
Pornography Restriction
As to the pornography restriction, we accept the State’s concessions for the reasons stated
and remand to the Kitsap County Superior Court with instructions to correct and amend the judgment
and sentence in a manner consistent with this opinion.
Length of Sentence
As noted, the State also conceded that the total sentence imposed on the third degree rape
of a child count exceeds the statutory maximum for a C class felony. We accept this concession as
well and remand for correction of this issue.
CONCLUSION
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.
______________________________
Cruser, A.C.J.
We concur:
______________________________
Price, J.
______________________________
Che, J.