State Of Washington, Respondent V. Teresa June York, Appellant

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals

Division Two

May 4, 2021

IN ‘THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53331-6-II
Respondent,
V.
THERESA JUNE YORK, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.

CRUSER, J. — Teresa York appeals her conviction and sentence for possession of a
controlled substance (methamphetamine) in violation of RCW 69.50.4013. The methamphetamine
was discovered on York’s person following a Terry! detention. Y ork argues that the trial court
erred when it denied her CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the evidence because the officer lacked
reasonable suspicion to detain her, and that the scope of the detention exceeded its investigatory
purposes.

After this court filed its opinion but before the mandate terminating review was entered,
the Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 69.50.4013 violated the due process clauses of the

state and federal constitutions and is void. Statev. Blake, 197Wn.2d 170, 195, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).

' Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).

No. 53331-6-II
2
York moved for reconsideration of this court’s opinion arguing, in light of Blake, that this
court should reconsider its decision and vacate her unlawful possession of a controlled substance
conviction. The State responded to York’s motion and concedes that York is entitled to vacation
of her conviction. The mandate has not yet issued in York’s appeal and her judgment is not yet
final. See In re Pers. Restraint of Skylstad, 160 Wn.2d 944, 954, 162 P.3d 413 (2007) (holding that
“a judgment is final when the appellate court mandate disposes of a timely direct appeal from the
conviction.”) (emphasis omitted). Therefore, York is entitled to the benefit of this intervening
appellate decision. “A new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied
retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no
exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break from the past.” In re Pers.
Restraint of St. Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 326, 823 P.2d 492 (1992); State v. Abrams, 163 Wn.2d
277, 290, 178 P.3d 1021 (2008).
Accordingly, we remand with instructions to vacate and dismiss with prejudice York’s
unlawful possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine conviction.
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.

No. 53331-6-II
CRUSER, J.
We concur:
Mxa. J.
MAXA, J.
Glasgow, AdJ
GLASGOW A.C.J.
3