* In re Pers. Restraint of Richardson

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
In re the Personal Restraint Petition of
JOHN A. RICHARDSON III,
Respondent.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 101043-5
O R D E R
Court of Appeals
No. 56216-2-II
Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice González and Justices Madsen,
Stephens, Yu and Whitener (Justice Whitener recused and Justice Gordon McCloud sat for
Justice Whitener), considered this matter at its November 8, 2022, Motion Calendar and
unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.
John Richardson was convicted in Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 08-1-01644-
9 of first degree intentional murder and second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. His
offender score was calculated at 10, with a standard range for the murder conviction (with a
firearm enhancement) of 471 to 608 months. The superior court imposed a prison sentence of
608 months. The judgment and sentence became final on direct appeal on December 1, 2011. On
September 13, 2021, Richardson filed a personal restraint petition in Division Two of the Court
of Appeals, among other things challenging the sentence on the basis the offender score
erroneously included a prior conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance, a
conviction now invalid under State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). The Court of
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

Page 2
Order
101043-5
Appeals granted the petition in part, holding that the offender score error constituted a facial
sentencing defect exempting Richardson’s personal restraint petition from the one-year time
limit on collateral review pursuant to RCW 10.73.090(1). The court determined that in light of
this error, Richardson was entitled to resentencing with the superior court having the correct
offender score in mind, and it remanded to the superior court for that purpose. The State filed a
motion for discretionary review in this court.
Richardson’s judgment and sentence is not facially invalid for purposes of exempting the
personal restraint petition from the time limit. Removing from the offender score the prior
conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance reduces the score from 10 to 9, but
at a score of 9 Richardson’s standard range remains 471 to 608 months. See RCW 9.94A.510
(highest standard range reached at offender score of 9 or more). The superior court imposed a
sentence within that range and therefore the sentence was authorized. In this circumstance, the
judgment and sentence is not facially invalid. In re Pers. Restraint of Coats, 173 Wn.2d 123,
136, 267 P.3d 324 (2011); In re Pers. Restraint of Toledo-Sotelo, 176 Wn.2d 759, 768-70, 297
P.3d 51 (2013).
IT IS ORDERED:
That the State’s motion for discretionary review is granted, and the Court of Appeals
decision granting the personal restraint petition in part and remanding for resentencing is
reversed.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 14th day of November, 2022.
For the Court
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of:
JOHN A. RICHARDSON III,
Respondent.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 101043-5
O R D E R
Court of Appeals
No. 56216-2-II
Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice González and Justices Madsen,
Stephens, Yu and Whitener (Justice Johnson sat for Justice Whitener), considered five motions
to publish at its March 7, 2023, Motion Calendar and unanimously agreed that the following
order be entered.
IT IS ORDERED:
That the motions to publish are granted and the order filed in this case on November 14,
2022, shall be published in Washington Reports.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 10th day of March, 2023.
For the Court
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.