Personal Restraint Petition Of Chelsea K. Hayes, 55510-7

Chelsea Hayes was convicted in 2018 of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (PWID), and unlawful possession of controlled substances. She filed a timely personal restraint petition.
While her petition was pending, the Washington Supreme Court decided State v. Blake, holding RCW 69.50.4013 (possession statute) unconstitutional; the State conceded Hayes’s unlawful possession conviction must be vacated under Blake.
Hayes argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence seized from her home because the search warrant listed the wrong street number (warrant listed 7205; Hayes’s address was 7250 14th Ave SE, Lacey).
To show ineffective assistance she had to prove counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that, but for the deficiency, the outcome probably would have been different (Strickland/McFarland standard).
The court treated an incorrect address on a warrant as not automatically fatal; the controlling question is whether the error made a mistaken search likely. Officers executing the warrant knew Hayes’s residence, so the address error was immaterial under State v. Bohan and State v. Rood.
The court vacated the unlawful possession conviction per Blake, affirmed the conspiracy and PWID convictions (finding no ineffective assistance), remanded to correct offender score and resentence, and denied appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hayes’s unlawful possession conviction must be vacated after Blake	Blake invalidates the possession statute; conviction must be vacated	State conceded Blake requires vacation of the unlawful possession conviction	Vacated under Blake; remanded to trial court to vacate that conviction
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence because the warrant listed the wrong house number	Counsel should have moved to suppress; a lack of particularity (wrong address) likely would have led to suppression and changed the outcome	An incorrect address alone does not invalidate a warrant; officers knew Hayes’s actual residence so a suppression motion would likely fail	Counsel not ineffective; suppression motion would likely not have succeeded, convictions for conspiracy and PWID affirmed

State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) (held RCW 69.50.4013 unconstitutional)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (explains prejudice and deficient performance standards for ineffective assistance in Washington)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part federal ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17 (2011) (strong presumption that counsel’s performance is reasonable)
State v. Bohan, 72 Wn. App. 335 (1993) (incorrect address on warrant is immaterial where officers know defendant’s residence)
State v. Rood, 18 Wn. App. 740 (1977) (same principle regarding warrant particularity and execution)