State Of Washington, V. Randy Coy Henderson ( 2021 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 14, 2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 55935-8-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RANDY COY HENDERSON,
Appellant.
MAXA, J. – Randy Henderson appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his conviction for
unlawful possession of a controlled substance without prejudice, based on State v. Blake, 197
Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). Henderson argues and the State concedes that the dismissal
should have been with prejudice. We accept the State’s concession, and remand for the trial
court to vacate Henderson’s conviction and to dismiss the case with prejudice.
FACTS
In 1994, Henderson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. In May 2021,
after the Blake decision was issued, Henderson filed a motion to vacate his conviction under CrR
7.8(b). The State also filed a motion to vacate, and asked the court to dismiss the conviction
without prejudice. The trial court granted the State’s motion to vacate Henderson’s conviction
and dismissed the case without prejudice.
Henderson appeals the trial court’s order.
No. 55935-8-II
ANALYSIS
In Blake, the Supreme Court held that Washington’s strict liability drug possession
statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), violates state and federal due process clauses and therefore is void.
197 Wn.2d at 195. As a result of the Supreme Court's holding in Blake, any conviction based on
RCW 69.50.4013(1) is invalid and anyone who has been convicted under that statute is entitled
to have their conviction vacated. State v. LaBounty, 17 Wn. App. 2d 576, 581, 487 P.3d 221(2021).
Because Henderson’s conviction is invalid, it must be vacated and the case dismissed
with prejudice. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the case without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
We remand for the trial court to vacate Henderson’s 1994 conviction for unlawful
possession of a controlled substance and dismiss the case with prejudice.
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.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
WORSWICK, J.
LEE, C.J.
2