Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
June 29, 2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of
No. 55510-7-II
CHELSEA KIRSTEN HAYES,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
LEE, C.J. — Chelsea Hayes seeks relief from personal restraint imposed following
her 2018 convictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of controlled
substances.1 While her petition was pending, the Washington State Supreme Court issued
its decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 173, 481 P.3d 521 (2021), which held RCW
69.50.4013(1), the statute making possession of controlled substances illegal, to be
unconstitutional. The State concedes that under Blake, Hayes is entitled to have her
conviction for unlawful possession vacated.
As to the convictions for conspiracy and possession with intent to deliver, Hayes
argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel did not move to
suppress the evidence seized from Hayes’ house on grounds that the search warrant lacked
particularity. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Hayes must demonstrate that
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that as a
1
We issued the mandate of Hayes’s direct appeal on November 8, 2019, making her
November 6, 2020 petition timely filed. RCW 10.73.090(3)(b).
No. 55510-7-II
result of that deficient performance, the result of the case probably would have been
different. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335-36, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995); Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We presume
strongly that trial counsel’s performance was reasonable. State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17,
42, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 860 (2014). To establish deficient
performance from the failure to file a motion to suppress, the petitioner must show that the
trial court likely would have granted the motion had it been made. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d
at 337 n.4.
Hayes’s house, the premises searched, was at 7250 14th Avenue SE in Lacey. The
search warrant listed the address as 7205 14th Avenue SE in Lacey. Hayes argues that a
motion to suppress for lack of particularity would likely have been granted had it been
made. But an incorrect address on a search warrant alone does not invalidate the warrant;
the key inquiry is whether there are adequate assurances that a mistaken search would not
be likely to occur. State v. Bohan, 72 Wn. App. 335, 339, 864 P.2d 26 (1993), review
denied, 124 Wn.2d 1002 (1994). Where, as here, the officers executing the warrant knew
where the defendant lived, an error in the address listed on the warrant is immaterial. Id.
at 340; see State v. Rood, 18 Wn. App. 740, 745-46, 573 P.2d 1325 (1977). Hayes fails to
show that a motion to suppress would likely have been granted; thus, Hayes fails to show
that trial counsel performed deficiently in not making that motion.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand Hayes’s conviction for unlawful possession
to the trial court for vacation pursuant to Blake. We also affirm Hayes’s convictions for
conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with
2
No. 55510-7-II
intent to deliver, and remand for correction of Hayes’s offender score and resentencing.
We deny Hayes’s request for appointment of counsel.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Lee, C.J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Sutton, J.
3