State of Washington v. Jose Luis Mata, 34703-6

Police arrested Christian Gonzalez after a bicycle stop; Gonzalez had small bags of methamphetamine and led officers to large quantities hidden in the wall of a garage that served as Jose Mata’s living quarters.
Officers seized about six pounds of methamphetamine from the garage, a digital scale with residue, and packaging similar to that found on Gonzalez; no drugs, money, or Mata fingerprints were found on the seized bags.
Gonzalez initially denied Mata’s involvement, then (after continued questioning and seeking leniency) implicated Mata—saying Mata helped hide the drugs, received an ounce, and assisted in sales; investigators could not corroborate these later claims.
Mata did not testify at trial; defense emphasized Gonzalez’s inconsistent statements and lack of corroboration; trial court instructed on possession with intent to deliver but defense did not request a lesser included instruction for simple possession.
The jury convicted Mata of possession with intent to deliver; he was sentenced to 7.5 years and assessed $5,700 in discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) plus $700 in costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mata was entitled to a lesser-included instruction for simple possession	State: greater offense elements satisfied; no lesser instruction necessary	Mata: counsel ineffective for not requesting instruction because evidence supported only possession, not intent to deliver	Court: no; factual record supported intent to deliver, so no lesser-included instruction was warranted
Whether counsel’s failure to request the lesser instruction was ineffective assistance	State: N/A (court evaluated instruction first)	Mata: trial counsel deficient for not requesting instruction, causing prejudice	Court: did not reach Strickland prejudice inquiry because Mata failed the factual prong—no entitlement to instruction
Whether the quantity/other evidence supported intent to deliver	State: six pounds, scale, packaging, and storage space support intent to deliver	Mata: control of garage alone supports only constructive possession for personal use	Court: evidence (large quantity, scale, packaging, storage) supports inference of intent to deliver
Whether LFOs and costs were properly imposed without an ability-to-pay inquiry	State: LFOs and costs properly imposed	Mata: trial court failed to inquire into ability to pay before imposing LFOs	Court: remanded/vacated part — $5,000 in discretionary fines affirmed; $700 in costs vacated for lack of individualized inquiry (court ordered vacatur without hearing due to judge retirement and small amount)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443 (Wash. 1978) (two-part test for lesser-included offense instructions)
State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307 (Wash. 2015) (clarifying Workman; legal and factual prongs)
State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448 (Wash. 2000) (factual-prong standard requires evidence supporting only the lesser offense)
State v. Staley, 123 Wn.2d 794 (Wash. 1994) (unwitting possession defense and proof of substance identity)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (appellate review of LFOs and the need for ability-to-pay inquiry)
United States v. Valencia, 907 F.2d 671 (7th Cir. 1990) (storage compartment evidence supports possession with intent to distribute)