State Of Washington v. Joaquin David Garcia, 198 Wash. App. 527

Joaquin David Garcia was charged with first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm based on a 1994 conviction for first-degree rape of a child.
Garcia moved pretrial to exclude the 1994 conviction as a predicate because the sentencing court did not notify him, orally or in writing, of the statutory firearm prohibition (RCW 9.41.047(1)); he also raised alternative constitutional challenges to the 1994 plea.
The trial court found, as a matter of law on a CrR 8.3(c) Knapstad motion, that Garcia did not receive the required notice and excluded the 1994 conviction, then dismissed the firearm charge.
The State appealed, arguing the lack-of-notice issue was an affirmative defense for the jury (not resolvable on CrR 8.3(c)) and that the trial court improperly applied a per se rule rather than considering evidence of Garcia’s actual knowledge.
The appellate court reversed, holding the affirmative-defense issue (lack of notice) was for the jury and that the State had presented evidence that could show Garcia had actual knowledge of the firearm prohibition, so dismissal was erroneous.

Issue	State's Argument	Garcia's Argument	Held
Whether the lack-of-notice affirmative defense may be decided on a CrR 8.3(c) pretrial motion	CrR 8.3(c) dismissal was inappropriate because the defense does not negate an element and is a jury question	The court properly decided the defense as a matter of law and dismissed the predicate conviction	Held for State: trial court erred — lack-of-notice is an affirmative defense for the jury, so CrR 8.3(c) was not the proper vehicle
Whether failure to give oral/written notice at predicate conviction automatically bars use of that conviction as a firearm-disqualifying predicate	State: absence of notice is not necessarily dispositive; State may prove actual knowledge by other evidence	Garcia: absence of oral/written notice requires excluding the predicate conviction and dismissal of the firearm charge	Held for State: Breitung does not create a per se rule; State produced evidence that could show Garcia had actual knowledge, so dismissal was premature

State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (procedures for CrR 8.3(c) dismissal)
State v. Minor, 162 Wn.2d 796 (remedy when predicate court violated RCW 9.41.047(1) and affirmatively misled defendant)
State v. Breitung, 173 Wn.2d 393 (failure to give notice can warrant reversal absent proof defendant had actual knowledge)
State v. Sweeney, 125 Wn. App. 77 (knowledge of illegality not an element of unlawful firearm possession)