State of Washington v. Christopher John Blair, 33911-4

Christopher Blair was convicted in 2015 of taking a motor vehicle (TMV) after absconding from a drug-court program; sentencing followed a stipulated bench trial.
The State and defense agreed in writing that Blair had prior convictions and that those priors produced an offender score; the parties’ calculations concluded the score was 9, though the defense acknowledged at least 7 points.
Two prior 2011 TMV convictions (treated as same criminal conduct with a burglary conviction) arose from taking snowmobiles; defense argued those TMV convictions were facially invalid because they involved snowmobiles.
The defense sought an exceptional sentence based on alleged offender-score error (asking for a range corresponding to an offender score of 7) but did not ask the court to actually resentence within that lower range at the hearing.
The trial court declined to rule that the 2011 TMV convictions were facially invalid and denied an exceptional sentence, but imposed a 25-month DOSA sentence as requested.
On appeal Blair argued the 2011 TMV convictions were facially invalid and that he should be resentenced with an offender score of 7; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no facial invalidity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 TMV convictions are facially invalid	Blair: TMV convictions for taking snowmobiles are invalid on their face and should be excluded from offender score	State: Priors are valid on their face; facial invalidity not shown by plea/judgment documents	Court: Priors not facially invalid; Blair failed to show constitutional infirmity on face of record
Whether trial court’s denial of an exceptional sentence preserves appellate review	Blair: Appellate review allowed because claim raised below as basis for exception	State: Denial of exceptional sentence generally not appealable unless mandatory process violated	Court: Considered argument despite posture but rejected it on merits; exceptional-sentence rules would likely preclude relief otherwise
Whether the State bears burden to prove constitutional validity of priors	Blair: Implied challenge to validity of priors	State: Under Ammons, State has no affirmative burden unless prior is facially invalid	Court: Followed Ammons: only priors constitutionally invalid on their face are excluded
Whether resolving TMV statute coverage (snowmobiles) can be done from plea/judgment record	Blair: Record shows the convictions are for snowmobiles, so statute does not apply	State: Statutory interpretation cannot be resolved from face of prior conviction documents	Court: Determination requires statutory construction beyond face of record; thus cannot establish facial invalidity

State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 713 P.2d 719 (Sentencing Reform Act allows use of priors unless constitutionally invalid on their face)
State v. Mail, 121 Wn.2d 707, 854 P.2d 1042 (Denial of exceptional sentence generally not appealable absent mandatory-process error)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (sentencing-error exception to RAP 2.5 may permit appellate review)
State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 973 P.2d 452 (context on sentencing-review exceptions)
In re Personal Restraint of Stoudmire, 141 Wn.2d 342, 5 P.3d 1240 (interpretation of when a judgment is valid on its face)