IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 47290-2-II

Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA JAMES MULLENS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

MAXA, J. – Joshua Mullens appeals his conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. His 

only claim is that the information charging him was deficient because it failed to include an 

essential element of the charged crime: withholding or appropriating the stolen vehicle to the use 

of someone other than the true owner.

In a previous opinion, we held based on State v. Satterthwaite, 186 Wn. App. 359, 344 

P.3d 738 (2015) that withholding or appropriating the stolen vehicle to the use of someone other 

than the true owner is an essential element of possession of a stolen vehicle that must be included 

in the information. State v. Mullens, No. 47290-2-II, slip op. at 2-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 

2015) (unpublished), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/47290-2.15.pdf. Therefore, we 

reversed Mullens’ conviction and dismissed the charge against him without prejudice. Id.

The Supreme Court subsequently decided State v. Porter, 186 Wn.2d 85, 375 P.3d 664 

(2016). In Porter, the court disapproved the holding in Satterthwaite and held that the 

information for the charge of possession of a stolen vehicle need not include language that the 

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

November 8, 2016
No. 47290-2-II

2

accused withheld or appropriated the stolen vehicle to the use of someone other than the true 

owner. Id. at 90-92, 94. Following its decision in Porter, the Supreme Court granted review in 

this case and remanded to this court for reconsideration in light of Porter. State v. Mullens, 186

Wn.2d 1008, 380 P.3d 494 (2016).

We now hold that under Porter, the information in this case was constitutionally 

sufficient. Accordingly, we affirm Mullens’s conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle.

FACTS

In October 2014, the State charged Mullens with possession of a stolen vehicle. The 

information stated that Mullens “did unlawfully and feloniously knowingly possess a stolen 

motor vehicle, knowing that it had been stolen, contrary to RCW 9A.56.068 and RCW 

9A.56.140.” Clerk’s Papers at 1. Mullens did not challenge the sufficiency of the information at 

trial. The jury found Mullens guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle. 

Mullens appeals his conviction based on the claim that the information charging him with 

unlawful possession of a vehicle was deficient.

ANALYSIS

A. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS RULE

An information is constitutionally sufficient only if it includes all the essential elements 

of a crime. Porter, 186 Wn.2d at 89. The primary purpose of the essential elements rule is to 

give notice to the accused of the charges and to allow him or her to prepare a defense. Id. If the 

State fails to allege every essential element, then the information is insufficient and we must 

dismiss the charge without prejudice. Id. at 89-90.

The test for identifying an essential element of an offense is whether the element’s 

specification is necessary to establish the illegality of the behavior charged. Id. at 89. Essential 
No. 47290-2-II

3

elements include only those facts that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a 

defendant of the charged crime. State v. Zillyette, 178 Wn.2d 153, 158, 307 P.3d 712 (2013).

When the information is challenged for the first time on appeal, we construe its language 

liberally. Id. at 89

B. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE

RCW 9A.56.068(1) states that a person is guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle if he or 

she possesses a stolen motor vehicle. RCW 9A.56.140(1) states that “possessing stolen 

property” means “knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property 

knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use of any person 

other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.” The information referenced both statutes, 

but did not expressly include the language in RCW 9A.56.140(1) about withholding or 

appropriating the stolen vehicle to the use of someone other than the true owner.

Mullens argues that the statutory definition of possessing stolen property in RCW 

9A.56.140(1) must be included in the information for the charge of possession of a stolen 

vehicle. However, the Supreme Court in Porter expressly rejected that argument. 186 Wn.2d at 

90-92, 94. The court held that an information with language almost identical to the information 

here contained all the essential elements of possession of a stolen vehicle and therefore was not 

deficient. Id. at 88, 94.

We apply Porter and hold that the information charging Mullens with possession of a 

stolen vehicle was constitutionally sufficient even though it did not include a statement that 

Mullens withheld or appropriated the stolen vehicle to the use of someone other than the true 

owner. Therefore, the information here was constitutionally sufficient.
No. 47290-2-II

4

CONCLUSION

We affirm Mullens’s conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle.

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.

MAXA, A.C.J.

We concur:

WORSWICK, J.

SUTTON, J.