State Of Washington v. Quintin Dublin
This text of State Of Washington v. Quintin Dublin (State Of Washington v. Quintin Dublin) 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.
Opinion
COURT OF APEALS DIVISION II
2815 APR 28 AM 8: 38
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHI14W . ' SHINGTON
BY DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 46335 -1 - II
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION QUINTIN ANTONIO DUBLIN,
Appellant.
MAxA, J. — Quintin Dublin appeals his convictions for two counts of second degree
criminal mistreatment. The State concedes that the charging documents were defective. We
accept the concession, and we reverse and dismiss Dublin' s second degree criminal mistreatment
convictions without prejudice.
FACTS
On November 7, 2013, the State charged Dublin with two counts of second degree
abandonment of a dependent person, two counts of second degree criminal mistreatment, and
two counts of reckless endangerment. The information for the criminal mistreatment charges
alleged that Dublin " recklessly create[ d] an imminent and substantial risk of death or great
bodily harm," but did not allege that he did so by withholding any of the basic necessities of life.
Clerk' s Papers at 2. The State filed an amended information dismissing the two reckless
endangerment counts, which contained the same allegations for the criminal mistreatment
charges.
After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Dublin on the two criminal mistreatment
counts but acquitted him on the two abandonment counts. Dublin appeals. 46335 -1 - II
ANALYSIS
Dublin argues that the information and amended information were defective for failing to
include essential elements of the crime of criminal mistreatment, as defined by RCW
9A.42. 030( 1). The State concedes that the charging documents were defective, and we agree.
An information must state all the essential elements of a crime in order to give notice to
the accused of the nature of the charges. State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158, 307 P. 3d 712
2013). An essential element is one that is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior
charged. Id.
RCW 9A.42. 030( 1) states that a parent or other person with responsibility for a child is
guilty of criminal mistreatment in the second degree if he or she recklessly " either ( a) creates an
imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, or (b) causes substantial bodily harm
by withholding any of the basic necessities of life." In State v. McGary, we held that the phrase
by withholding any of the basic necessities of life" applies to both subsection ( a) and subsection
b). 122 Wn. App. 308, 312 -17, 93 P. 3d 941 ( 2004). As a result, we further held that an
information alleging second degree criminal mistreatment based on recklessly creating an
imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm must include the " by withholding"
element. Id. at 318.
Here, because the information and amended information omitted the " by withholding"
element, the State admits that the information was defective under McGary. The parties also
agree that pursuant to McGary, there is presumed prejudice to Dublin, requiring reversal and
dismissal of Dublin' s convictions without prejudice. Id.
2 46335 -1 - II
We hold that under McGary, the information and amended information were defective.
Accordingly, we reverse the second degree criminal mistreatment convictions and dismiss them
without prejudice. McGary, 122 Wn. App. at 318.
Dublin also argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of
criminal mistreatment. Because we are reversing his convictions based on the defective charging
documents, we need not reach this argument. McGary, 122 Wn. App. at 318 ( declining to
address sufficiency of the evidence because " the State never validly charged McGary with
second degree criminal mistreatment "); see also State v. Rodgers, 146 Wn.2d 55, 58 -59, 43 P. 3d
1 ( 2002).
We reverse and dismiss Dublin' s convictions for second degree criminal mistreatment
without prejudice.
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.
We concur:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State Of Washington v. Quintin Dublin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-quintin-dublin-washctapp-2015.