State v. Balles

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 103,582-9
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON JULY 31, 2025 IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON JULY 31, 2025 SARAH R. PENDLETON SUPREME COURT CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 103582-9 Respondent, ) ) v. ) En Banc ) KELLY JAY BALLES, ) ) Petitioner. ) ) Filed: July 31, 2025

JOHNSON, J.—This case concerns the validity of an arrest warrant that was

issued prior to our 2021 decision in State v. Blake1 but executed afterward. In

Blake, we found the statute criminalizing simple drug possession to be

unconstitutional because it lacked an intent element.

In 2020, Kelly Balles was serving a 12-month community custody sentence

for an underlying simple drug possession conviction. During that sentence, Mr.

Balles consistently failed to report to his community corrections officer in violation

1 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

of his sentence requirement. As a result, the secretary of the Department of

Corrections (DOC) issued a warrant for Mr. Balles’s arrest.

When law enforcement officers served the warrant, they found evidence of

additional violations and subsequently charged Mr. Balles with new offenses. In an

evidence suppression hearing, the trial court ruled that our Blake decision

automatically invalidated Mr. Balles’s community custody term and the DOC

warrant. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 86. The court suppressed the evidence found

during Mr. Balles’s arrest. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed. State

v. Balles, 32 Wn. App. 2d 356, 556 P.3d 698 (2024), review granted, 4 Wn.3d

1006 (2025).2

Although the statute at issue in Blake was effectively invalidated at the time

the decision was filed, we hold that Blake did not automatically invalidate the

outstanding warrant, which was based on a community custody violation. Instead,

Blake made the warrant voidable. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to

the trial court to address the unresolved arguments raised in this case.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2014, Mr. Balles was charged with illegally possessing cocaine pursuant

to former RCW 69.50.4013(1) (2013) in Yakima County. His judgment and

2 The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to resolve Mr. Balles’s alternative arguments.

2 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

sentence included seven and a half months in full confinement and one year of

community custody supervision. The community custody conditions required Mr.

Balles to report to a corrections officer and to affirmatively cooperate with DOC’s

efforts to monitor his compliance with the imposed conditions. He was prohibited

from possessing any controlled substances or firearms and ammunition.

After Mr. Balles completed his full confinement sentence, he began to serve

the community custody portion of his sentence. Mr. Balles continuously failed to

report to his corrections officer, causing his sentence to be tolled pursuant to RCW

9.94A.171.

Because of his failure to report, DOC issued a warrant3 on January 28, 2020,

authorizing and directing law enforcement officers to arrest Mr. Balles. The

warrant listed Mr. Balles’s 2014 conviction as the associated cause number without

specifying the underlying statute of conviction. See CP at 48. On February 25,

2021, this court entered our opinion in Blake.

On March 31, law enforcement officers executed the outstanding arrest

warrant against Mr. Balles, who was renting a room inside a third party’s home.

3 The DOC secretary is authorized to issue arrest warrants when individuals serving a community custody sentence violate a condition of that sentence. RCW 9.94A.716(1).

3 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

The homeowner confirmed Mr. Balles lived there, and during a search, Mr. Balles

was located and arrested.

During the arrest, one officer noticed a crystalline substance on the bed

where Mr. Balles was found and suspected it to be methamphetamine. Based on

this potential additional violation, and after detaining Mr. Balles, the officers lifted

the mattress to look for more evidence of drug possession. They found a large

quantity of methamphetamine and a full box of ammunition. The officers then

obtained a search warrant to look for more evidence showing Mr. Balles was

violating the community-custody-imposed prohibition on possessing controlled

substances, firearms, and ammunition. From this search, the officers found a stolen

firearm, large sums of United States currency, several pounds of cannabis, drug

distribution paraphernalia, and more ammunition. Consequently, the State charged

Mr. Balles with two counts of drug possession with an intent to distribute, unlawful

firearm possession, and stolen firearm possession. The following August, Yakima

County Superior Court granted the State’s motion to vacate Mr. Balles’s 2014

judgment and sentence, and released him from the remainder of his community

custody sentence.

In the criminal proceedings on the new charges, Mr. Balles moved to

suppress the evidence found in his room during the 2021 arrest. He raised issues

challenging the validity of the warrant in light of Blake. The trial court suppressed

4 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

the evidence. It concluded that the 2014 conviction was void as of February 25,

2021, when Blake was published. It also concluded that the DOC warrant issuance

and execution were invalid, and that the officers lacked probable cause to believe

Mr. Balles was engaged in criminal activity. It determined that the process to

vacate the simple possession conviction was just a formality. And finally, it

determined that the judicial search warrant was invalid and all evidence obtained

during the arrest and search was done so illegally. CP at 86-87. The State appealed,

challenging the trial court’s order. In response, Mr. Balles claimed that Blake

invalidated the DOC warrant. 4

In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mr. Balles’s

conviction was not void on the date we issued our Blake decision, that the warrant

was valid at the time it was served, and that the search was lawful. The court

remanded Mr. Balles’s alternative theory to the trial court for resolution. Mr.

Balles challenges the Court of Appeals’ decision raising the Blake issue only.5

ANALYSIS

In Blake, we held that former RCW 69.50.4013(1), prohibiting possession of

a controlled substance (“simple possession”), was unconstitutional. Mr. Balles

4 Mr. Balles also claimed that the police officers exceeded the scope of the warrant when they conducted the search of his residence. This claim is an issue for the trial court to resolve. 5 DOC submitted an amicus brief joining the State in requesting that we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision.

5 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

argues that our decision in Blake immediately invalidated all judgments and

sentences imposed under the former statute. He asserts that any community

custody conditions imposed as part of a simple drug possession conviction became

retroactively unenforceable, rendering the DOC warrant devoid of authority. He

concludes that his constitutionally protected privacy rights were violated by law

enforcement officers when they executed the warrant and that the officers should

have known Blake required them to forego executing the warrant. Mr. Balles’s

strand of arguments essentially hinges on Blake having an automatic and

retroactive effect on his 2014 conviction.

Both parties in this case seem to agree that former RCW 69.50.4013(1)

became invalid at the time we filed Blake on February 25, 2021. Although we

assume this is true, Mr. Balles’s claim that the holding had automatic effect in

other cases is unsupported. In its analysis of the warrant’s validity post-Blake, the

Court of Appeals reasoned that “[w]hen faced with a potentially invalid court

order, the solution is not to willfully violate it. Instead, the defendant must

challenge his original judgment and sentence in a timely manner and comply with

the terms of the order until it is otherwise overturned.” Balles, 32 Wn. App. 2d at

367-68. We agree. A formal process is necessary to determine the extent of Blake-

related relief individuals are entitled to according to their circumstances. See, e.g.,

State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 713 P.2d 719 (1986) (individuals seeking

6 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

postconviction relief must use established avenues to do so). Incarcerated

individuals serving sentences solely for simple possession convictions would be

entitled to release. Individuals incarcerated based on multiple convictions,

including simple possession, might be entitled only to resentencing. See RCW

9.94A.728(2) (requiring a court order before an incarcerated individual entitled to a

Blake-related vacation or offender score recalculation can obtain relief). Because

Blake can affect an individual’s sentence or criminal history in various ways,

logically, some additional step is required to ensure individuals receive relief

tailored to their circumstances. Given that an incarcerated person entitled to some

form of Blake-related relief would not automatically be released from their

sentence post-Blake without an established procedure, a similarly situated person

would not be automatically released from community custody and its conditions.

Accordingly, an outstanding warrant issued pre-Blake for violations of a

community custody sentence based on the former statute would not automatically

become invalid. Just as Blake may entitle some individuals to relief through an

established process, we deem such an outstanding warrant as voidable. We hold

that the postconviction consequences of our Blake decision for individuals with

prior convictions based on RCW 69.50.4013(1) are not self-executing.

Here, Mr. Balles was serving a community custody sentence based on a

simple possession conviction. He was not released from his community custody

7 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

sentence and corresponding conditions until August 4, when a court vacated his

conviction. Because, the outstanding warrant was executed while Mr. Balles was

still subject to the conditions of his sentence, the warrant was voidable but

remained valid.

Two recent Blake-related cases, State v. Olsen 6 and State v. Willyard, 7

support this conclusion. In those cases, petitioners sought to withdraw multiple

guilty pleas, which included guilty pleas to simple possession. They claimed that

as a result of Blake, they had pleaded guilty to nonexistent crimes, making the

pleas involuntary. As part of our holdings in these cases, we stated that the

petitioners pleaded guilty to valid crimes at the time of conviction. Importantly, we

rejected the argument implying a statute deemed unconstitutional was a legal

nullity. These cases support the argument that judicial action is required in order to

vacate a conviction—that the conviction is voidable, not void. Thus, our

declaration in Blake that the former simple possession statute was unconstitutional

does not eliminate all traces of a simple possession conviction in an individual’s

criminal history. As we stated in Willyard, “[Simple] possession under the former

statute is not a nonexistent crime.” 3 Wn.3d at 716. Because former RCW

69.50.4013(1) was presumed valid at the time of Mr. Balles’s 2014 conviction, the

6 3 Wn.3d 689, 555 P.3d 868 (2024). 7 3 Wn.3d 703, 555 P.3d 876 (2024).

8 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

warrant issued for Mr. Balles’s failure to report violation remained valid until the

conviction was judicially vacated.

Mr. Balles argues that our decision in State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 640 P.2d

1061 (1982), required law enforcement officers to know that the Blake decision

immediately rendered outstanding DOC warrants invalid. We disagree. White

presented the unique circumstance where police arrested an individual under a

statute that mirrored a city ordinance previously declared unconstitutional. 97

Wn.2d at 102-03. But subsequent cases cabined the applicability of the White

holding. See, e.g., State v. Potter, 156 Wn.2d 835, 132 P.3d 1089 (2006) (referring

to the White holding as a narrow exception to the general rule that statutes are

presumed valid until judicially determined to be invalid). The exception to the

presumption of validity applies only when an appellate court has previously

declared language closely resembling that of the law at issue to be unconstitutional.

Potter, 156 Wn.2d at 842-43; see State v. Brockob, 159 Wn.2d 311, 341 n.19, 150

P.3d 59 (2006) (rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on White because no law

resembling the statute in that case had previously been struck down).

The officers here did not arrest Mr. Balles for violating RCW

69.50.4013(1)—in fact, the warrant lacked information about the underlying

statute of conviction. The arrest was authorized by a DOC warrant, issued pursuant

to RCW 9.94A.716. Even if the officers knew Mr. Balles was serving a sentence

9 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

for simple possession, DOC argues that what the officers knew was irrelevant

because DOC is authorized only to carry out sentences, not correct them. Amicus

Br. of DOC at 10-11. We agree. The courts are tasked with the responsibility of

correcting erroneous sentences and determining the extent of postconviction relief.

State v. Broadaway, 133 Wn.2d 118, 942 P.2d 363 (1997) (holding that DOC was

prohibited from determining the length of a community custody sentence when the

written sentence lacked a specific length and the trial court misstated the legally

permitted length). Here, the reach of indirect consequences from Blake were

unknown at the time, which required judicial resolution.

In summary, we hold that Blake did not automatically invalidate Mr.

Balles’s judgment and sentence or the DOC warrant. The conviction became

eligible for vacation and the warrant became voidable. Absent a formal court

decision voiding the warrant or vacating the conviction, the arrest was valid in

relation to the Blake issue. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand

to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

10 State v. Balles, No. 103582-9

:(&21&85