Personal Restraint Petition Of Richard Lamar Taylor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF:
RICHARD LAMAR TAYLOR,
Petitioner.
DIVISION ONE
No. 84036-3-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DWYER, J. — Richard Taylor sought relief from personal restraint imposed
following his February 2020 convictions for possession of a controlled substance
with intent to manufacture or deliver and unlawful possession of a firearm in the
first degree. In an unpublished opinion filed on October 31, 2022, we held that
Taylor was entitled to resentencing because the offender score relied on at
sentencing included two convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled
substance, convictions invalidated by State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 195, 481
P.3d 521 (2021).
The State thereafter requested reconsideration of our decision granting
Taylor’s personal restraint petition. The State asserts that Taylor’s judgment and
sentence is not facially invalid because the sentence imposed by the superior
court remains authorized after excision of the unconstitutional convictions from

No. 84036-3-I/2
2
Taylor’s offender score. In light of the November 14, 2022 order issued by our
Supreme Court, we agree. Order, In re Pers. Restraint of Richardson, No.
101043-5 (Wash. Nov. 14, 2022).
Because Taylor’s personal restraint petition was filed more than one year
after his judgment and sentence became final, the petition is time-barred.
Accordingly, we deny relief and dismiss the petition.
I
In February 2020, Taylor was convicted of possession of a controlled
substance with intent to manufacture or deliver and unlawful possession of a
firearm in the first degree. Taylor’s offender score of 12, calculated at
sentencing, included two convictions for possession of a controlled substance.
Our Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Blake invalidated all convictions for
violations of our State’s strict liability simple possession statute.
In February 2022, Taylor filed in the Snohomish County Superior Court a
motion to correct his offender score and for resentencing pursuant to Blake. The
superior court transferred the motion to this court for consideration as a personal
restraint petition. In an unpublished decision filed on October 31, 2022, we
granted Taylor’s petition for relief and remanded to the superior court for
resentencing.
The State thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that we
reconsider our unpublished opinion, deny Taylor’s request for relief, and dismiss
his personal restraint petition.

No. 84036-3-I/3
3
II
A personal restraint petition that challenges a judgment and sentence
must be filed within one year after the judgment and sentence becomes final.
RCW 10.73.090(1). A petitioner bears the burden of showing that his or her
petition is timely. In re Pers. Restraint of Quinn, 154 Wn. App. 816, 833, 226
P.3d 208 (2010). Pursuant to RCW 10.73.100(6), the time bar does not apply if
the petition is “[1] based on a significant change in the law, [2] which is material
to the conviction or sentence, and [3] sufficient reasons exist to require
retroactive application of the changed legal standard.” In re Pers. Restraint of
Ali, 196 Wn.2d 220, 233, 474 P.3d 507 (2020).
Taylor filed the petition at issue here more than one year after his
judgment and sentence became final. Thus, the petition is untimely pursuant to
RCW 10.73.090(1) unless Taylor can show that (1) the judgment and sentence is
facially invalid or was not entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (2) an
exception pursuant to RCW 10.73.100 applies.
The State asserts in its motion for reconsideration that Taylor’s judgment
and sentence is not facially invalid for purposes of exempting his personal
restraint petition from the one-year time limit on collateral review. This is so, the
State contends, because removing Taylor’s prior convictions for possession of a
controlled substance from the offender score would not change the applicable
standard range sentence.
A recent order issued by our Supreme Court is dispositive. Order, In re
Pers. Restraint of Richardson, No. 101043-5 (Wash. Nov. 14, 2022). In that

No. 84036-3-I/4
4
case, Division Two of this court determined that an error in the petitioner’s
offender score, which included a prior controlled substance conviction, was a
facial sentencing defect that exempted the petition from the one-year time limit.
In re Pers. Restraint of Richardson, No. 56216-2-II, slip op. at 2-3, (Wash. Ct.
App. June 1, 2022) (unpublished),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056216-2-
II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf.
On discretionary review, our Supreme Court held:
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).
Order at 2.
We adopt this as our position.1
Excising Taylor’s prior convictions for possession of a controlled
substance from the judgment reduces his offender score from 12 to 10.
However, the applicable standard range sentence remains unchanged. See
RCW 9.94A.510. The sentence imposed by the superior court, being within that
1 Notwithstanding that our Supreme Court’s ruling was set forth in an order of a
department of the court, rather than in an opinion of the court, longstanding authority
demonstrates that decisions made by a department of the court are nevertheless precedential.
See, e.g., State v. Dickens, 66 Wn.2d 58, 401 P.2d 321 (1965); Green Mountain Sch. Dist. No.
103 v. Durkee, 56 Wn.2d 154, 351 P.2d 525 (1960); Hogland v. Klein, 49 Wn.2d 216, 289 P.2d
1099 (1956); State v. Emmanuel, 49 Wn.2d 109, 298 P.2d 510 (1956).

No. 84036-3-I/5
5
range, was authorized. Accordingly, Taylor’s judgment and sentence is not
facially invalid for purposes of exemption from the time limit on collateral review.
We dismiss Taylor’s personal restraint petition, which is time-barred
pursuant to RCW 10.73.090(1).
WE CONCUR: