State of Washington v. Jeremy Michael Ramirez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
JEREMY MICHAEL RAMIREZ,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 38258-3-III
(Consolidated with
No. 39142-6-III)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STAAB, J. — Jeremy Ramirez assigns error to his offender score and argues that
we should remand for resentencing pursuant to State v. Blake.1 In the alternative,
Ramirez argues that we should remand for resentencing because the court erred when it
did not consider his youth at sentencing. The State concedes that Ramirez should be
resentenced pursuant to Blake. We agree and remand for a full resentencing.
BACKGROUND
Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of first degree assault in 2012. At the same
time, Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of first degree burglary and one count of first
1 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).
FILED
JUNE 22, 2023
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

No. 38258-3-III (Consolidated with 39142-6-III)
State v. Ramirez
2
degree robbery. Ramirez was 19 years old at the time. Ramirez’s offender score was
“9+” and his criminal history included a prior juvenile drug possession conviction.
Ramirez’s criminal history also included ten other juvenile convictions.
The sentencing court imposed 399 months of incarceration.
Ramirez appeals in light of Blake.2
ANALYSIS
Ramirez argues that he is entitled to resentencing because his criminal history
includes a now-void drug possession conviction. We agree.
In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court decided State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170,
481 P.3d 521 (2021). Blake held that former RCW 69.50.4013 (2017), which
criminalized possession of a controlled substance, violated state and federal due process
clauses and was therefore unconstitutional. 197 Wn.2d at 183-86.
Ramirez’s criminal history includes a now void juvenile drug possession
conviction. Removing the void conviction will reduce Ramirez’s offender score,
although the extent of the reduction is not clear from the record. However, given that
Ramirez’s offender score could be affected, we vacate his sentence and remand for a full
2 Ramirez’s motion for an extension of time to file the appeal was granted
pursuant to RAP 18.8(b).

No. 38258-3-III (Consolidated with 39142-6-III)
State v. Ramirez
3
resentencing. See State v. Kinsey, No. 37737-7-III, slip op. at 2 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 21,
2021) (unpublished) https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/377377_unp.pdf.
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.
_________________________________
Staab, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Fearing, C.J.
_________________________________
Siddoway, J.