State Of Washington, Respondent. V. Marc Vanslyke, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MARC RICHARD VANSLYKE,
Appellant.
No. 82651-4-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM — In May 2020, the State charged Marc Vanslyke with felony
violation of a court order and interfering with domestic violence reporting, a gross
misdemeanor. On December 1, 2020, he pleaded guilty as charged to both
crimes. In May 2021, the court sentenced Vanslyke to 60 months of confinement
on the felony charge and imposed 364 days of confinement on the misdemeanor
count, but suspended that sentence.
After Vanslyke was sentenced, this court held in State v. Briggs, 18 Wn.
App. 2d 544, 550, 553, 492 P.3d 218 (2021), that charging language, which is
virtually identical to the information in this case, was constitutionally inadequate
because it failed to apprise the defendant of an essential element of a willful
violation of a court order. Vanslyke argues, and the State concedes, that the
same defect in this case renders Vanslyke’s plea constitutionally invalid. See
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645, 96 S. Ct. 2253, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108
(1976) (notice of the nature of the charge is “‘the first and most universally

recognized requirement of due process’”) (quoting Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S.
329 334, 61 S. Ct. 572, 85 L. Ed. 859 (1941); see also In re Pers. Restraint of
Keene, 95 Wn.2d 203, 207, 622 P.2d 360 (1980) (guilty plea cannot be
construed as voluntary unless the defendant is informed of the nature of the
charge). Vanslyke further contends, and the State agrees, that the plea
agreement was indivisible under State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 400, 69 P.3d
338 (2003), and Vanslyke is entitled to withdraw both pleas even though the
deficiency affected only one count. See State v. Bisson, 156 Wn. 2d 507, 519,
130 P.3d 820 (2006). The objective manifestations indicate that the parties
intended to create an indivisible contract. Therefore, we accept this concession
as well.
We remand to the trial court to allow Vanslyke to withdraw his pleas of
guilty to felony violation of a court order and interfering with domestic violence
reporting.1
1 Because we conclude that Vanslyke may withdraw his pleas to all counts, we need not
reach the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that he raises in a statement of additional
grounds for review.