State Of Washington, V. Matthew Benjamin Labounty

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedMay 4, 2021
Docket53551-3
StatusUnpublished

This text of State Of Washington, V. Matthew Benjamin Labounty (State Of Washington, V. Matthew Benjamin Labounty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Of Washington, V. Matthew Benjamin Labounty, (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

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. 53551-3-II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MATTHEW BENJAMIN LABOUNTY, aka NICHOLAS RYAN GEORGE,

Appellant.

MAXA, J. – Matthew LaBounty initially appealed his sentence for unlawful possession of

a controlled substance, buprenorphine. In a supplemental brief, LaBounty challenged his

conviction following the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d

521 (2021). The State concedes that LaBounty’s conviction must be vacated. We reverse and

remand for the trial court to vacate LaBounty’s conviction.

While LaBounty was incarcerated on another matter, corrections officers found a

controlled substance in his possession. The State charged LaBounty with unlawful possession of

a controlled substance, buprenorphine. He agreed to plead guilty based on a plea agreement with

the State. LaBounty now challenges his conviction.

In Blake, the Supreme Court held that Washington’s strict liability drug possession

statute, RCW 69.50.4013(1), violates state and federal due process clauses and therefore is void.

197 Wn.2d at 195. As a result, any conviction based on that statute is invalid. See In re Pers. No. 53551-3-II

Restraint of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853, 857, 100 P.3d 801 (2004) (a judgment and sentence is

invalid on its face when a defendant is convicted of a nonexistent crime). And a conviction

based on an unconstitutional statute must be vacated. See Blake, 197 Wn.2d at 195; State v.

Carnahan, 130 Wn. App. 159, 164, 122 P.3d 187 (2005) (vacating a conviction that was based

on a statute that the Supreme Court held was unconstitutional). Therefore, LaBounty’s

conviction for possession of a controlled substance must be vacated.

We reverse and remand to the trial court to vacate LaBounty’s conviction for unlawful

possession of a controlled substance.

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.

MAXA, J.

We concur:

SUTTON, J.

GLASGOW, A.C.J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Carnahan
122 P.3d 187 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2005)
In Re Hinton
100 P.3d 801 (Washington Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Blake
481 P.3d 521 (Washington Supreme Court, 2021)
In re the Personal Restraint of Hinton
152 Wash. 2d 853 (Washington Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Carnahan
130 Wash. App. 159 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Of Washington, V. Matthew Benjamin Labounty, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-matthew-benjamin-labounty-washctapp-2021.