State of Washington v. Jeremy Michael Ramirez (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUNE 22, 2023 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 38258-3-III (Consolidated with No. 39142-6-III) UNPUBLISHED OPINION STAAB, J. — Jeremy Ramirez assigns error to his offender score and argues that we should remand for resentencing pursuant to State v. Blake.1 In the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). No. 38258-3-III (Consolidated with 39142-6-III) State v. Ramirez 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 Ramirez’s motion for an extension of time to file the appeal was granted pursuant to RAP 18.8(b). 2 2 No. 38258-3-III (Consolidated with 39142-6-III) State v. Ramirez 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 Dec. 21, 2021) (unpublished) https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/377377_unp.pdf.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. 3
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.
