State Of Washington, V. Zachary Matthew Yates, 55065-2

In June 2020, Zachary Yates pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex offender; the State recommended a 43‑month confinement term (and 36 months community custody) based on an offender score the judgment recorded as 16 points (9+).
Seven offender‑score points derived from prior drug possession convictions under RCW 69.50.4013(1).
About two weeks before sentencing in this case, Yates received a 57‑month sentence for a prior conviction; at sentencing he argued the 43‑month term should run concurrently under RCW 9.94A.589(3).
The superior court ordered the 43‑month term to run consecutively to the prior sentence, citing Yates’s offender score exceeding 9 and his many convictions; it also imposed community custody and related LFOs.
After State v. Blake, RCW 69.50.4013(1) was declared void; Yates argued on appeal that his seven drug convictions must be removed from his offender score, reducing it to 9 and invalidating the basis for an exceptional consecutive sentence.
The State conceded the Blake-based challenge; the Court of Appeals accepted the concession, vacated Yates’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing. The court did not rule on Yates’s indigency challenge to the community custody supervision fee and allowed him to raise it at resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yates’s sentence must be vacated because prior drug convictions counted in his offender score are void under State v. Blake, causing his offender score to fall to 9 and removing the basis for an exceptional consecutive sentence	State conceded Blake voids the drug‑possession convictions and that the sentence should be vacated	Yates argued the seven drug convictions are unconstitutional under Blake, must be removed from his offender score, and resentencing is required	Court accepted State’s concession, vacated the sentence, remanded for resentencing; offender score reduced to 9, so exceptional consecutive sentence under RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c) inapplicable
Whether imposition of a community custody supervision fee was erroneous because Yates is indigent	State did not contest vacatur on Blake grounds; fee issue unresolved on appeal	Yates contended he is indigent and the fee should not be imposed	Court did not reach the fee issue; allowed Yates to raise it at resentencing

State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) (holding RCW 69.50.4013(1)—simple drug possession statute—violates due process and is void)
State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175 (1986) (voided convictions may not be used in offender‑score computations)
State v. Wilson, 170 Wn.2d 682 (2010) (remedy for sentence based on miscalculated offender score is resentencing)
State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220 (2004) (sentencing principles and remedies for error in offender score)
State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884 (2012) (offender‑score and related sentencing authority)