82257-8•State Of Washington, Respondent V. John Stuart Delafield, Appellant
State Of Washington, Respondent V. John Stuart Delafield, Appellant
82257-8Washctapp02.08.2021
Gesamter Gesetzestext
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. JOHN STUART DELAFIELD, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 82257-8-I DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION PER CURIAM — John Delafield appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1). Delafield contends, and the State concedes, that Delafield’s conviction must be vacated under State v. Blake, in which our Supreme Court held RCW 69.50.4013(1) unconstitutional and, thus, void. 197 Wn.2d 170, 195, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). We accept the State’s concession, reverse Delafield’s conviction, and remand to the trial court to vacate the conviction. Additionally, because the State represents that it will not file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review, we grant the State’s request for an expedited mandate and direct the clerk to issue the mandate as soon as is feasible. See RAP 12.5(b) (“The clerk of the Court of Appeals will issue the mandate for a Court of Appeals decision terminating review upon stipulation of the parties that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review will be filed.”).
No. 82257-8-I/2 2 Reversed and remanded. FOR THE COURT:
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 8/2/2021 Court of Appeals Division | State of Washington IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 82257-8-1 Respondent, DIVISION ONE V. UNPUBLISHED OPINION JOHN STUART DELAFIELD, Appellant. | PER CURIAM — J ohn Delafield appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1). Delafield contends, and the State concedes, that Delafield’s conviction must be vacated under State v. Blake, in which our Supreme Court held RCW 69.50.4013(1) unconstitutional and, thus, void. 197 Wn.2d 170, 195, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). We accept the State’s concession, reverse Delafield’s conviction, and remand to the trial court to vacate the conviction. Additionally, because the State represents that it will not file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review, we grant the State’s request for an expedited mandate and direct the clerk to issue the mandate as soon as is feasible. See RAP 12.5(b) (“The clerk of the Court of Appeals will issue the mandate fora Court of Appeals decision terminating review upon stipulation of the parties that no motion for reconsideration or petition for review will be filed.”). No. 82257-8-I/2 Reversed and remanded. FOR THE COURT: Chan, C. 2
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.