* State Of Washington, Respondent V A.l.r.h., Appellant

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 55172-1-II
Respondent,
v.
A.L.R.H., PUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J. — A.L.R.H.1 appeals his adjudication for possession of 40 grams or less of
marijuana while under 21 years of age. A.L.R.H. argues that his adjudication should be vacated
in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).
We agree, reverse the adjudication, and remand to the juvenile court to vacate the adjudication.
FACTS
On February 5, 2020, the State charged A.L.R.H. with one count of violation of the
uniformed controlled substances act—possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while under 21
years of age. A.L.R.H. was found guilty at a stipulated trial.
A.L.R.H. appeals.
1 We use initials to protect the privacy of the juvenile involved. Gen. Order 2018-2 of Division
II, In re Changes to Case Title (Wash. Ct. App.),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/?fa=atc.genorders_orddisp&ordnumber=2018-
2&div=II
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 7, 2021
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 55172-1-II
2
ANALYSIS
A.L.R.H. argues that his adjudication for possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while
under the age of 21 must be vacated because the possession statute under which he was found
guilty is unconstitutional and void following the Supreme Court’s holding in Blake. The State
argues that Blake does not apply here because possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana while
under the age of 21 carries a less severe punishment than the statute that was held unconstitutional
in Blake. The State’s argument fails because our Supreme Court in Blake did not hold that the
statute was unconstitutional because of the severity of the punishment; rather, our Supreme Court
held the possession of a controlled substance statute unconstitutional because the statute
“criminalize[d] innocent and passive possession” of controlled substances. 197 Wn.2d at 195.
A conviction based on a void statute is invalid. See In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton, 152
Wn.2d 853, 857, 100 P.3d 801 (2004) (“Where a defendant is convicted of a nonexistent crime,
the judgment and sentence is invalid on its face.”). Convictions based on unconstitutional statutes
must be vacated. See Blake, 197 Wn.2d at 195 (vacating conviction based on unconstitutional
drug possession statute).
In Blake, our Supreme Court concluded that the strict liability drug statute, former RCW
69.50.4013(1) (2017), was void because it “criminalize[d] innocent and passive possession” of
controlled substances and thus violated the due process clauses of the state and federal
constitutions. Id. Blake held that it was not possible for the court to avoid the constitutional issue
by interpreting the statute “as silently including an intent element” because the Supreme Court had
previously held that the legislature intended drug possession to be a strict liability felony. Id. at
174.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 55172-1-II
3
Former RCW 69.50.4014 (2015) provided that “any person found guilty of possession of
forty grams or less of marijuana is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Following the Supreme Court’s
decision in Blake, the legislature amended RCW 69.50.4014 to provide that “any person found
guilty of knowing possession of forty grams or less of marijuana is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
LAWS OF 2021, ch. 311, § 10 (emphasis added). When the legislature “chang[es] the language of
a statute, the Legislature is presumed to intend a change in the law.” State v. Carlson, 65 Wn.
App. 153, 158, 828 P.2d 30, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1022 (1992).
Here, A.L.R.H. was adjudicated under former RCW 69.50.4014, which provided that “any
person found guilty of possession of forty grams or less of marijuana is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
This statute, like the statute held unconstitutional in Blake, did not contain an element of intent,
and thus it “criminalize[d] innocent and passive possession” of controlled substances. 197 Wn.2d
at 195.
Like the statute that was held unconstitutional in Blake, former RCW 69.50.4014 cannot
be read “as silently including an intent element” because the legislature amended RCW 69.50.4014
to include that intent element shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Blake. 197 Wn.2d at
174; LAWS OF 2021, ch. 311, § 10. Had the statute already included an element of intent, the
legislature would not have needed to add the word “knowing.” See Carlson, 65 Wn. App. at 158
(legislature is presumed to intend a change in the law when it changes the language of a statute).
Because former RCW 69.50.4014 did not include an element of intent, silent or otherwise,
it “criminalize[d] innocent and passive possession” of controlled substances and, thus, violated the
due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Blake, 197 Wn.2d at 195. Therefore,
former RCW 69.50.4014 is unconstitutional and void, and it cannot support A.L.R.H.’s
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 55172-1-II
4
adjudication. See Hinton, 152 Wn.2d at 857. Because convictions based on unconstitutional
statutes must be vacated, we reverse and remand to the juvenile court to vacate A.L.R.H.’s guilty
adjudication.
Lee, C.J.
We concur:
Maxa, J.
Price, J.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.