State of Washington v. Shane Robert Hughes, 33573-9

In Jan 2014 Shane R. Hughes took a Dodge Ram parked at Otto Sieber’s residence; he claimed he thought the truck was abandoned and that Sieber had died.
The State charged Hughes by amended information with one count of possession of a stolen motor vehicle (RCW 9A.56.068); Hughes did not challenge the information at trial and was convicted by a jury.
At sentencing the trial court struck all legal financial obligations (LFOs), including the DNA fee, but retained boilerplate language requiring DNA submission; the court did not impose community custody though an appendix referenced postrelease DOC supervision.
On appeal Hughes argued the information was constitutionally insufficient for failing to allege the statutory definition of “possess” (RCW 9A.56.140(1)) and raised sentencing objections (DNA submission, applicability of LFO and community-custody appendices).
The Court of Appeals applied State v. Porter and related authorities, rejected Hughes’s challenge to the information, and disposed of the sentencing issues as without error or inapplicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of charging document: whether the information must allege RCW 9A.56.140(1) "withhold or appropriate" language	Hughes: information omitted an essential element (the statutory definition of "possess"), so conviction must be reversed	State: the "withhold or appropriate" language is definitional (limits scope), not an essential element required in the charging document	Court: Affirmed conviction — Porter controls: the statutory definition is definitional, not an essential element, so the information was sufficient
Sentencing: DNA collection and applicability of boilerplate appendices (LFOs, community custody)	Hughes: court abused discretion by ordering DNA (he previously submitted a sample); appendices improperly require LFOs/community-custody reporting	State: judgment language and appendices already exempt or do not apply where prior sample/LFOs/community custody were not ordered; State will not seek appellate costs	Court: No error — DNA requirement is qualified by language that it does not apply if WSP already has a sample; appendices requiring LFOs/community-custody do not apply because the court struck LFOs and did not impose community custody; appellate-costs issue is moot as State won’t seek them

State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269 (review of charging-document sufficiency standard) (discussing de novo review)
State v. Johnson, 180 Wn.2d 295 (charging documents must include all essential elements; definitional elements need not be pled)
State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93 (charging documents challenged on appeal are liberally construed in favor of validity)
State v. Porter, 186 Wn.2d 85 (definition in RCW 9A.56.140(1) is definitional, not an essential element of RCW 9A.56.068)
State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901 (appellate costs discretion and mootness principles)