State v. Mata, 321 P.3d 291

Mata appeals convictions for Yakima County counts including first degree robbery and unlawful firearm possession; Pierce County conviction for unlawful firearm possession was reversed on double jeopardy grounds.
On July 28, 2009 Mata led a multi-county crime spree, with a .45 caliber handgun found in a Dodge Caravan in Yakima later linked to Yakima charges.
In Yakima County, counts included robbery in the first degree with firearm display and unlawful possession of a firearm; charges were amended multiple times before trial.
The firearm involved had been purchased by Christina Barrientes; Mata was in jail for a separate offense when the gun purchase occurred.
A Yakima jury convicted Mata of two robberies and unlawful possession of a firearm, with firearm and rapid recidivism enhancements; the court imposed an exceptional sentence and ordered Yakima offenses to run consecutively to Pierce County sentence.
The court reversed Mata’s unlawful possession conviction on double jeopardy grounds, remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yakima County unlawful possession conviction violates double jeopardy	Mata (Mata) asserts a single firearm’s possession cannot yield multiple prosecutions	State contends each firearm possession is a separate unit of prosecution	Yes; unlawful possession is a course of conduct; double jeopardy bars remaining charges
Whether the State properly amended information after resting its case	Mata contends CrR 2.1(d) notice violation	State argues nunc pro tunc amendments correcting language are permissible	No reversible error; amendments allowed with limited scope and safeguards
Whether Yakima and Pierce sentences may run consecutive	Mata challenges consecutive sentencing	State supports consecutive sentencing based on multiple current offenses	Consecutive sentences affirmed/upheld as proper under statutory framework
Whether the ‘free crimes’ aggravator is warranted given other issues on appeal	Mata challenges aggravator tied to unresolved issues	State contends aggravator supported by findings	Considered but not dispositive to reversal; affirmed subject to remand for proper resentencing

State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777 (2006) (double jeopardy protections apply to same offense units)
State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010) (unit of prosecution for course-of-conduct offenses)
State v. Varnell, 162 Wn.2d 165 (2007) (unit-of-prosecution analysis for statutory offenses)
State v. Ose, 156 Wn.2d 140 (2005) (statutory unit of prosecution and de novo review)
State v. Shale, 160 Wn.2d 489 (2007) (multiple possessions of same firearm as potential separate offenses)
State v. Kenyon, 150 Wn. App. 826 (2009) (interim interruptions may or may not create separate possessions)
State v. Chouap, 170 Wn. App. 114 (2012) (course-of-conduct offenses may be recommenced as separate pursuits)