### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 52772

- 3

- II (consolidated with No. 52779

- 1

- II) Respondent,

v. JAMES EARL EATON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant.

C RUSER , J.

— James Earl Eaton appeals his guilty plea s to four counts of motor vehicle theft based on the theft of four snowmobiles. He argues that (1) his plea was not voluntary because there was no factual basis for those pleas because snowmobiles are not motor vehicles and (2) his case should be reversed f

or dismissal on those four counts and remanded for his choice of remedy

. While this case was pending, our Supreme Court decided State v. Van Wolvelaere , 195 Wn.2d 597, 461 P.3d 1173 (2020), holding that snowmobiles are motor vehicles for purposes of the t heft of a motor vehicle statute , RCW 9A.56.065

. In light of Van Wolvelaere , we hold that there was a factual basis for the pleas and affirm. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two December 8, 2020Consolidated Nos. 52772

- 3

- II / 52779

- 1

- II

2 FACTS On October 31, 2018, Eaton pleaded guilty to eleven charges, which included four counts of motor vehicle theft for four stolen snowmobiles

. 1 Eaton acknowledged that he “unlawfully stole four different snowmobiles that belonged to” someone one else and that he “did not have permission to have those motor vehicles.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Oct. 31, 2018)
at 52. The court accepted Eaton’s pleas as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and found that Eaton’s statements established a factual basis for the pleas. Eaton appealed. After the briefing was comple te, this court stayed the case pending the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in Van Wolvelaere , 195 Wn.2d 597, in which the court was to decide the issue of whether a snowmobile is a motor vehicle under RCW 9A.56.065. The court decided Van Wolvelae re on April 30, 2020, and this court lifted the stay and this case was set without requesting any supplemental briefing.
ANALYSIS Eaton argues that his guilty plea s were not voluntary because there was no factual basis for the four counts of theft of a mo tor vehicle based on his theft of four snowmobile s . Citing State v. Van Wolvelaere , 8 Wn. App. 2d 705, 707, 440 P.3d 1005 (2019), rev’d , 195 Wn.2d 597 (2020), Eaton contends that there was no factual basis for these pleas because snowmobiles are not motor vehicles under RCW 9A.56.065.

1 On the same day, Eaton also pleaded guilty to another charge under a separate cause number. The cases were to be tried together, so when Eaton appealed from both cases this court consolidated the appeals. Eaton does not raise any issues related to the oth er case.Consolidated Nos. 52772

- 3

- II / 52779

- 1

- II

3

While this case was pending, our Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision
in Van Wolvelaere and held that “[ a] snowmobile is a ‘ motor vehicle ’ for purposes of RCW 9A.56.06 5.” Van Wolvelaere , 195 Wn.2d at 611. RCW 9A.56.065( 1 ) only requires that someone

“ commits theft of a motor vehicle

. ” Thus, Eaton ’s acknowledg ment that he “ unlawfully stole four different snowmobiles that belonged to ” someone one else and that he “ did not have permission to have those motor vehic les ,” establishes a factual basis for his guilty pleas. VRP (Oct

. 31, 2018) at 52.
T herefore, we hold the re was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea s and affirm.
Because Eaton does not show that his guilty pleas were invalid, we need not address Eaton’s

rem aining arguments

.Consolidated Nos. 52772

- 3

- II / 52779

- 1

- II

4 CONCLUSION
We hold there was a factual basis for Eaton’s guilty plea and that the plea was voluntary

. We decline to consider Eaton ’ s remaining arguments

. Accordingly, we affirm. A majority of the panel having determined th at 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.

CRUSER, J. We concur:

MAXA, P.J.

MELNICK, J.