State Of Washington, Respondent V. Quintin Dublin, Appellant (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APEALS DIVISION II 2815 APR 28 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHI14W . ' AM 8: 38 SHINGTON BY DIVISION II No. 46335 -1 - II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION QUINTIN ANTONIO DUBLIN, Appellant. MAxA, J. — Quintin Dublin appeals his convictions for two counts of second degree criminal mistreatment. The State concedes that the charging documents were defective. We accept the concession, and we reverse and dismiss Dublin' s second degree criminal mistreatment convictions without prejudice. FACTS On November 7, 2013, the State charged Dublin with two counts of second degree abandonment of a dependent person, two counts of second degree criminal mistreatment, and two counts of reckless endangerment. The information for the criminal mistreatment charges alleged that Dublin " recklessly create[ d] an imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm," but did not allege that he did so by withholding any of the basic necessities of life. Clerk' s Papers at 2. The State filed an amended information dismissing the two reckless endangerment counts, which contained the same allegations for the criminal mistreatment charges. After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Dublin on the two criminal mistreatment counts but acquitted him on the two abandonment counts. Dublin appeals. 46335 -1 - II ANALYSIS Dublin argues that the information and amended information were defective for failing to include essential elements of the crime of criminal mistreatment, as defined by RCW The State concedes that the charging documents were defective, and we agree. 9A.42. 030( 1). An information must state all the essential elements of a crime in order to give notice to the accused of 2013). the nature of the charges. State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158, 307 P. 3d 712 An essential element is one that is necessary to establish the very illegality of the behavior charged. Id. RCW 9A.42. 030( 1) states that a parent or other person with responsibility for a child is guilty of criminal mistreatment in the second degree if he or she recklessly " either ( a) creates an imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, or (b) causes substantial bodily harm by withholding of any the basic necessities of life." In State v. McGary, we held that the phrase by withholding any of the basic necessities of life" applies to both subsection ( a) and subsection b). 122 Wn. App. 308, 312 -17, 93 P. 3d 941 ( 2004). As a result, we further held that an information alleging second degree criminal mistreatment based on recklessly creating an imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm must include the " by withholding" element. Id. at 318. Here, because the information and amended information omitted the " by withholding" element, the State admits that the information was defective under McGary. The parties also agree that pursuant to McGary, there is presumed prejudice to Dublin, requiring reversal and dismissal of Dublin' s convictions without prejudice. Id. 2 46335 -1 - II We hold that under McGary, the information and amended information were defective. Accordingly, we reverse the second degree criminal mistreatment convictions and dismiss them without prejudice. McGary, 122 Wn. App. at 318. Dublin also argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of criminal mistreatment. Because we are reversing his convictions based on the defective charging documents, we need not reach this argument. McGary, 122 Wn. App. at 318 ( declining to address sufficiency of the evidence because " the State never validly charged McGary with second degree criminal mistreatment "); see also State v. Rodgers, 146 Wn.2d 55, 58 -59, 43 P. 3d 1 ( 2002). We reverse and dismiss Dublin' s convictions for second degree criminal mistreatment without prejudice. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
