State of Washington v. Victor P. Hudak

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 40822-1
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED MARCH 19, 2026 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 40822-1-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VICTOR P. HUDAK, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )

COONEY, J. — Victor Hudak was convicted of child molestation in the first degree.

Thereafter, he moved the trial court for an order compelling his trial attorney to provide

him with a copy of his client file and discovery materials. The court denied the motion.

Mr. Hudak appeals. The State concedes.

BACKGROUND

In 2023, Mr. Hudak was convicted of child molestation in the first degree and

sentenced to 68 months of confinement. Mr. Hudak later requested a copy of his client

file and discovery materials from his trial attorney to assist him in preparing a personal No. 40822-1-III State v. Hudak

restraint petition (PRP). In response to the request, Mr. Hudak’s attorney informed him

that he needed the court’s permission before releasing the information. Mr. Hudak then

filed a motion for an order compelling his trial attorney to provide him with a copy of his

client file and discovery materials. The court denied the motion, finding that discovery

had already been provided to Mr. Hudak.

Mr. Hudak appeals.

ANALYSIS

A criminal defendant is entitled to a copy of his case file and discovery under

CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d). “[D]isclosure must be made when a criminal defendant

requests copies of his or her client file and relevant discovery at the conclusion of

representation . . . no showing of need is required for disclosure.” State v. Padgett, 4 Wn.

App. 2d 851, 854, 424 P.3d 1235 (2018). “The ends of justice are best served by timely

disclosure of a client file to an individual investigating the possibility of postconviction

relief through a PRP.” Id. at 855.

Contrary to the court’s findings, the record is void of any evidence that “discovery

has already been provided” to Mr. Hudak. Clerk’s Papers at 43. Moreover, the court

neglected to address Mr. Hudak’s request for his client file. Under our holding in

Padgett, the trial court was obliged to grant Mr. Hudak’s motion for disclosure of his

client file and discovery materials, subject to withholdings under RPC 1.16(d) and

redactions under CrR 4.7(h)(3). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Hudak’s

2 No. 40822-1-III State v. Hudak

motion and remand for the trial court to order Mr. Hudak’s trial attorney to provide Mr.

Hudak with the requested information.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to

RCW 2.06.040.

Cooney, J.

WE CONCUR:

Staab, A.C.J.

Hill, J.