54175-1•State Of Washington, Respondent V. K.l.o., Appellant
Full text
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 54175-1-II Respondent, v. K.L.O., UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant. WORSWICK, J. — KLO appeals her adjudication for violation of the uniform controlled substances act—possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21 years of age. She argues that her adjudication is unconstitutional under State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). We agree. Consequently, we reverse KLO’s adjudication and remand to juvenile court to vacate KLO’s adjudication for possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21 years of age and dismiss the case. FACTS In June 2019, the State charged KLO with one count of violation of the uniform controlled substances act—possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21 years of age. The juvenile court found KLO guilty. KLO appeals her adjudication and disposition. ANALYSIS KLO argues that in light of our Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021), we should vacate her unlawful possession of a controlled substance adjudication. In Blake, our Supreme Court concluded that the strict liability drug statute, RCW Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two June 2, 2021
No. 54175-1-II 2 69.50.4013(1), is void because it “criminalize[s] innocent and passive possession” of controlled substances and violates the “due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions.” 197 Wn.2d at 187, 188. The State concedes this issue, and we agree that KLO’s adjudication must be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse KLO’s adjudication for violation of the uniform controlled substances act—possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21 years of age, and remand to the trial court to vacate this adjudication and dismiss the case. 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. ____________________________ Worswick, J. We concur: __________________________________ Lee, C.J. __________________________________ Veljacic, J.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.