In re Parejo
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 84238-2-I |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of: MANUEL PAREJO, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Manuel Parejo brings a personal restraint petition, appealing revocation of his parole by the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB or the Board). He argues that the Board's underlying finding that he violated two conditions of parole (associating with a known drug user and his unsuccessful discharge from sex offender treatment) were an abuse of discretion. We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion.
In 1978, Manuel Parejo was convicted of rape and kidnapping, both in the first degree and both while armed with a deadly weapon. A married couple picked him up while he was hitchhiking. Once in their truck, he threatened them with a gun and forced them to drive him to a park. There, he tied up the husband, then raped the wife. Parejo was sentenced to a term of 180 months to life.
Between the 1970s and 90s he was intermittently incarcerated and serving parole, then was re-sentenced and incarcerated.[1] After 30 years of uninterrupted incarceration, he was granted parole on September 17, 2020. His release was subject to the rules and conditions of parole and community custody under the supervision of a Community Correction Officer (CCO).
The relevant conditions of his release were:
Parejo was released from confinement and approved to live with his sister, her husband, and her son.
On Saturday, May 22, 2021, Parejo and Robert King (a friend, also serving on parole) were driving. They picked up a woman named "Rebecca,"[2] who flagged them down and asked for help.
While in the car, Parejo told Rebecca he was on very strict parole and had to tell his CCO everything. Rebecca asked to be taken to her friend's house. After attempting to find it, they gave up. Rebecca told them she really needed to leave the camp where she had been staying because "sometimes a couple guys would not let her leave that area."
Parejo described that he observed Rebecca was "pretty dirty" and he asked her if she was homeless, which she appeared to confirm. Parejo offered to let Rebecca "clean up" at his sister's house and get a good meal, for which he would need his sister's permission. Parejo testified he asked Rebecca if she had drugs on her, due to his conditions of parole. She said no.
Parejo, his sister, and his nephew all described Rebecca needing help walking down the hallway and to the shower. Then, after Rebecca was taken to the shower, Parejo and his nephew heard her fall down, went to check on her, and helped her up. Parejo's sister testified that she saw Parejo washing Rebecca's foot with a rag, and she "took over" from him.
Parejo offered Rebecca his bed. He said he spent his time in his room, sitting or laying on or near the bed. Parejo's nephew was also present and testified in a limited fashion to the same.
"A couple times on Saturday" Parejo tried to call his CCO who had an out-of-office voicemail saying he would return May 10th. Parejo did not leave a message, because he did not think he could, due to an out-of-office voice message with a date that had since passed. Parejo continued to try calling his CCO the next day, to no avail.
Late in the morning of Sunday, May 23, Rebecca told Parejo she was a methamphetamine user and wanted to "clean up" and "get some help." At some point that same day, she told Parejo she wanted to leave.
Parejo described that, also Sunday night, he was in his room where Rebecca slept under the covers. He testified to alternating between being in his chair and sleeping on the bed, "never under the covers."
During this time, Parejo claimed he wanted to make a "disclosure" to his CCO and take Rebecca to his CCO to "hear what she had to say." He contended nothing sexual occurred, and that Rebecca had "medical problems."
On the morning of Monday, May 24, Parejo texted his CCO:
I very much need to speak with you &bring you up to speed. I come in on the 25th. And need to bring in my lady for a disclosure. Please don't slow walk me on this. I have been a good boy. HELP!"
At some point, shortly after sending the text, Parejo left a voicemail for his CCO saying the "disclosure" was no longer necessary because Rebecca wanted to "go back to drugs." Parejo texted his CCO a second time and informed him a disclosure was no longer necessary. Parejo stated he never saw Rebecca use drugs, but he also told his CCO that "he had found paraphernalia," which neither independently verified.
Later that day, Parejo's CCO arrived at the residence and spoke with Rebecca. Both the CCO and Parejo describe that, when the CCO arrived at the residence, Parejo had to help Rebecca sit up in bed. The CCO described Rebecca as not coherent or observed her as semi-conscious. At some point when the CCO was at the residence, Rebecca stripped off her own clothes and said "everyone was a rapist."
Parejo's CCO asked Parejo what sort of contact took place between them and Parejo said they "kissed and hugged," but nothing further. Before the ISRB, Parejo disagreed, characterizing the kissing as a "peck on the forehead." He also claimed that, when he said he "hugged" her, he meant he was guiding Rebecca down the hallway as she was unable to walk.
CCO further testified Parejo stated he thought he had to disclose a relationship to his CCO only if he intended to have sex with the subject. Then Parejo told the CCO that the relationship was not romantic, and disagreed with the CCO's understanding of the condition on parole. During that discussion, Parejo and the CCO discussed whether they thought Rebecca had used methamphetamine or heroin, but no one contested she had used drugs recently.
The CCO placed Parejo under arrest. Approximately three weeks later, on June 10, 2021, Parejo was unsuccessfully discharged from certified sexual offender treatment program (CSOTAP).
On July 15, 2021, the ISRB held a hearing, presided by an ISRB board member, to evaluate Parejo's sentence and parole. At issue was whether Parejo violated parole conditions E, G, and J by:
During the hearing, Parejo admitted that, by Sunday, May 23, when Rebecca was at his sister's house, he knew she was a "meth user" and stayed with him "Sunday night into Monday."
The examiner found that there was inconclusive evidence regarding whether Parejo entered into a romantic or sexual relationship with Rebecca. Therefore, he was found not guilty on violation 1. However, the examiner found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Parejo was guilty of violations 2 and 3 for associating with a "known drug user" and for exhibiting concerning behavior leading to his unsuccessful discharge from his sex offender community treatment program.
The examiner noted that, after reviewing the CSOTAP termination, the termination was not about a romantic or sexual relationship, rather Parejo's physical contact and continued close proximity with a person who had a very limited ability to give consent.
In a final decision of the Board member dated July 19, 2021, Parejo's parole was revoked. Approximately two weeks later, the ISRB affirmed the decision and set a new minimum term of confinement of 36 months. Parejo now brings this personal restraint petition arguing the ISRB's findings for violations 2 and 3 were an abuse of discretion.[3]
A. Standard of Review ISRB decisions setting a new minimum term are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Dyer ("Dyer III"), 175 Wn.2d 186, 196, 283 P.3d 1103 (2012) (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Locklear, 118 Wn.2d 409, 418, 823 P.2d 1078 (1992).
This court reviews ISRB decisions with substantial deference. Id. (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Whitesel, 111 Wn.2d 621,628, 763 P.2d 199 (1988) (footnote omitted); In re Pers. Restraint of Ecklund, 139 Wn.2d 166, 170, 985 P.2d 342 (1999)). Washington courts have often concluded that courts "are not a super [ISRB] and will not interfere" with an ISRB determination unless the ISRB has abused its discretion. Id.
An abuse of discretion may be found where the ISRB "fails to follow its own procedural rules for parolability hearings" or where the ISRB bases its decision on speculation and conjecture only. Id. (citing In re Dyer ("Dyer II"), 164 Wn.2d 274, 286, 189 P.3d 759 (2008)).
The petitioner bears the burden to prove the ISRB abused its discretion. Id. (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Addleman, 151 Wn.2d 769, 776, 92 P.3d 221 (2004)); see also, RAP 16.5.
The ISRB "shall give public safety considerations the highest priority when making all discretionary decisions on the remaining indeterminate...
To continue reading
Request your trial