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JAMES EARL EATON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION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.

CRUSER, J. — James Earl Eaton appeals his guilty pleas 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 for 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 theft 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, 2020
Consolidated 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 complete, 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 Wolvelaere 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 pleas were not voluntary because there was no factual basis for 

the four counts of theft of a motor vehicle based on his theft of four snowmobiles. 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 other 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.56.065.” 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 acknowledgment 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,” establishes a factual basis for his guilty pleas. VRP (Oct. 31, 2018) at 

52.

Therefore, we hold there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty pleas and affirm.

Because Eaton does not show that his guilty pleas were invalid, we need not address Eaton’s 

remaining 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 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.

CRUSER, J. 

We concur:

MAXA, P.J.

MELNICK, J.