State Of Washington v. Oscar Armando Quintanilla ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 69122-8-1
Respondent,
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OSCAR ARMANDO QUINTANILLA,
Appellant. FILED: April 21, 2014
Appelwick, J. — Quintanilla appeals his conviction for second degree assault by
strangulation. He argues that the conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and
that a sentence condition prohibiting contact with his daughter for 10 years was
imposed without considering its reasonable necessity. We affirm Quintanilla's
conviction but remand for further proceedings regarding the no-contact provision.
FACTS
Based on allegations that Quintanilla strangled and threatened A.J.Q., killed the
family cat, and shoved A.J.Q.'s mother, Tara Sanchez, the State charged him with
assault by strangulation, harassment, first degree animal cruelty, and fourth degree
assault. The State also charged Quintanilla with a number of sex offenses against
A.J.Q., including child molestation, attempted rape of a child, rape of a child, and
second degree rape.
At trial, the State's evidence established that during the summer of 2011,
Quintanilla lived in Kent with Sanchez, their teenage daughter, A.J.Q., and Sanchez's
No. 69122-8-1/2
children from a prior marriage. Because Quintanilla was concerned about the attention
A.J.Q. received from boys, she was not allowed to wear two piece bathing suits.
In early July 2011, A.J.Q. attended a neighbor's pool party with her siblings and
Sanchez. When they returned home, Quintanilla noticed that A.J.Q. was wearing a two
piece bathing suit underneath her shorts and shirt. When he asked about the suit,
A.J.Q. said that she wore her clothes over it the entire day. Sanchez, however, said
that A.J.Q. took her outer clothes off when she went in the pool. Upset that A.J.Q. lied
to him, Quintanilla told her to go to the master bedroom.
According to A.J.Q., Quintanilla came into the bedroom, grabbed her shirt, and
proceeded to choke her. She testified, "he was still yelling at me about what I had worn
.... And then he pushed me into the wall, by the TV, and then he . . . put his hands
around my neck." He proceeded to push her head against the wall, and "was squeezing
[her] neck" with "quite a lot of pressure." When asked if she had "a hard time
breathing," A.J.Q. said, "Kind of. I had put both my hands ... on his wrist, and I had
tried to . . . push it away, and when I did that, his grip got tighter." She testified that it
became more difficult to breathe at that point and that the choking lasted about five
minutes.
A.J.Q. testified that when she returned to the living room, she saw her reflection
in a mirror and noticed red marks on her neck where Quintanilla's hand had been.
A.J.Q.'s friend testified that A.J.Q.'s upper chest and neck were "kind of red" when she
came out of the bedroom.
No. 69122-8-1/3
Quintanilla testified and admitted grabbing A.J.Q.'s shirt and getting "in her face."
He denied choking her.
Sanchez testified that on July 24, 2011 Quintanilla threw her into some laundry
baskets, causing her to hit her head on the doors in front of a washer and dryer.
Quintanilla denied throwing Sanchez and claimed they both fell down when she tried to
hit him in the chest.
A few days later, the family cat defecated in the living room. According to A.J.Q.,
Quintanilla threw the cat "really hard" against the wall. He then threw it into the living
room and kicked it against the couch. He eventually took it into the bathroom. A.J.Q.
could hear him beating the cat in the bath tub with a toy gun. She went into the
bathroom and saw Quintanilla repeatedly punch the cat in the head. She asked him to
stop, but Quintanilla told her "to shut the fuck up or [she] was next." A.J.Q. was afraid
that Quintanilla would physically harm her.
When Quintanilla finished with the cat, he screamed at A.J.Q. to "[m]op that shit
up." Later that morning, A.J.Q. held the cat as it died. Sanchez called 911 to report that
Quintanilla killed the cat. When police arrived, they photographed the injuries to the
cat's body along with bruising on Sanchez's elbow and leg from the incident on July 24.
They arrested Quintanilla when he returned home from work.
The jury acquitted Quintanilla of the molestation and rape charges but convicted
him of second degree assault for strangling A.J.Q. They also convicted him of
harassment for threatening A.J.Q., fourth degree assault for the incident with Sanchez,
No. 69122-8-1/4
and first degree animal cruelty. Quintanilla's sentence included a provision prohibiting
contact with A.J.Q. for 10 years. He appeals.
DECISION
Quintanilla first contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that
he strangled A.J.Q. Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to
the State, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Salinas. 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). "A claim of insufficiency admits
the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn
therefrom." jd We defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony, credibility
of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v. Manion. 173 Wn. App.
610, 633, 295 P.3d 270 (2013).
To convict Quintanilla of second degree assault as charged in this case, the jury
had to find that he assaulted A.J.Q. by "strangulation." The court instructed the jury that
"[strangulation means to compress a person's neck, thereby obstructing the person's
blood flow or ability to breathe, or doing so with the intent to obstruct the person's blood
flow or ability to breathe." Therefore, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Quintanilla actually compressed A.J.Q.'s neck and either
obstructed or intended to obstruct her blood flow or ability to breathe.1 See State v.
Reed, 168 Wn. App. 553, 574-75, 278 P.3d 203, review denied. 176 Wn.2d 1009, 290
P.3d 995 (2012).
1 Contrary to Quintanilla's assertion, it was unnecessary for the State to prove
that he intended to obstruct A.J.Q.'s blood flow or breathing. Reed, 168 Wn. App. at
576.
No. 69122-8-1/5
A.J.Q. testified that Quintanilla placed one hand around her neck, pushed her
against a wall, and squeezed her neck for five minutes. During that time, she had
difficulty breathing. A rational trier of fact could find from this evidence that Quintanilla
compressed A.J.Q.'s neck and obstructed her breathing.2
Quintanilla also challenges the sentence condition prohibiting him from having
any contact with A.J.Q. for 10 years. He contends the court failed to address whether
the condition was reasonably necessary. Because the condition impacts his
constitutional right to parent, and because nothing in the record indicates that the court
considered whether the condition and its parameters were reasonably necessary, we
remand for further proceedings.
We review crime related prohibitions, including no-contact orders, for abuse of
discretion. State v. Ancira, 107 Wn. App. 650, 653, 27 P.3d 1246 (2001); In re Pers.
Restraint of Rainev, 168 Wn.2d 367, 374-75, 229 P.3d 686 (2010). However,
prohibitions that impact fundamental rights, such as the right to parent, are more closely
scrutinized to ensure that they are sensitively imposed and reasonably necessary to
accomplish the needs of the State. Rainev, 168 Wn.2d at 377-80. Although no court
has required written findings supporting provisions that affect fundamental rights, courts
must consider on the record whether such provisions and their "parameters"—i.e. scope
and duration—are reasonably necessary. See Rainev, 168 Wn.2d at 382 (remanding
"so that the sentencing court may address the parameters of the no-contact order under
2 "Obstruct" means both "[t]o clog or block (a passage) with obstacles" or "[t]o
impede, retard, or interfere with." Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary
812 (1984). Thus, the State had to prove only that Quintanilla impeded A.J.Q.'s
breathing.
No. 69122-8-1/6
the 'reasonably necessary' standard."). Because the record in this case does not reflect
such consideration by the sentencing court, we remand for the court to undertake such
consideration on the record and to either reaffirm or amend the no-contact provision as
necessary.3
Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
WE CONCUR:
jp"^r.cT yc^w^CL, «=» -1C
o-
ro
corn;
3£
ro
o
3 We note that the record amply demonstrates the reasonable necessity of a no-
contact provision. Quintanilla strangled his daughter, assaulted his adult girlfriend, and
viciously beat the family cat to death in front of them. While beating the cat, he told
A.J.Q. to "shut the fuck up or [she] was next." He then made her clean up the mess
from the killing. A no-contact provision of some scope and duration was plainly
necessary. With respect to the provision's scope, prohibiting all contact with A.J.Q was
arguably necessary since any physical contact would put A.J.Q. at risk of physical harm,
and any form of contact could put her at risk for further emotional harm. Finally, the
duration of the order could arguably be justified as well. Quintanilla's assault of
Sanchez, who was in her thirties, demonstrates that he will pose a physical and
emotional risk to A.J.Q. even when she becomes an adult. A 10 year no-contact order
arguably ensures that A.J.Q. is more mature and physically stronger when she next has
contact with Quintanilla. See State v. Aguilar, 176 Wn. App. 264, 278, 229 P.3d 686(2010) ("Furthermore, the 10-year length of the no contact order allows Mr. Cortes to
regain contact with his children when the children are at a more mature age and can
address their relationship with their father in light of the events that occurred.").