State of Washington v. Neal Alan Millikan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Appellant,
v.
NEAL ALAN MILLIKAN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 38871-9-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LAWRENCE-BERREY, A.C.J. — The State appeals after the trial court dismissed
Neal Alan Millikan’s 2016 bail jumping conviction on the basis that the predicate charge
of unlawful possession of a controlled substance was unconstitutional. We reverse and
direct the trial court to reinstate Mr. Millikan’s 2016 bail jumping conviction.
FACTS
In December 2015, law enforcement arrested Neal Alan Millikan on outstanding
warrants and found methamphetamine on him.
The State charged Mr. Millikan with unlawful possession of a controlled
substance. Because he later failed to appear for a pretrial hearing, the State filed an
FILED
JUNE 6, 2023
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 38871-9-III
State v. Millikan
2
amended information that added a charge of bail jumping. In July 2016, Mr. Millikan
pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced.
After our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d
521 (2021), declaring RCW 69.50.4013 unconstitutional and void, Mr. Millikan filed a
CrR 7.8 motion to vacate his 2016 unlawful possession conviction. The trial court
entered an agreed order vacating Mr. Millikan’s 2016 unlawful possession conviction but
left intact his 2016 bail jumping conviction.
In April 2022, Mr. Millikan filed a motion to dismiss his 2016 bail jumping
conviction. He argued the conviction should be dismissed because there was no
underlying crime in light of the dismissal of his unlawful possession conviction. The trial
court agreed and dismissed Mr. Millikan’s 2016 bail jumping conviction with prejudice.
The State timely appealed.
ANALYSIS
The State contends the trial court erred when it dismissed Mr. Millikan’s bail
jumping conviction. We agree and reverse.
During the pendency of the State’s appeal, we decided State v. Paniagua, 22 Wn.
App. 2d 350, 511 P.3d 113, review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1018, 520 P.3d 970 (2022). There,
we considered whether a bail jumping conviction is void if the statute supporting the

No. 38871-9-111
State v. Millikan
underlying charge is later declared unconstitutional. Id. at 352. We concluded that a
valid underlying charge is not a necessary predicate for a bail jumping conviction. Id. at
356. In support of our conclusion, we cited the universal rule that "the unconstitutionality
of a statute under which the defendant was convicted or charged does not justify escape
from imprisonment." Id. at 358.
Here, the trial court's order dismissing Mr. Millikan's 2016 bail jumping
conviction conflicts with Paniagua. 	We reverse the trial court and direct it to reinstate
the conviction.
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.
Lawrence-Berrey, A.~}
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.
3