No. 50103-8-IThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: November 12, 2002 DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 011089583, Hon. Donald Haley, February 25, 2002, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.
David B. Koch, Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.
Catherine L. Floit, Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 25678, Seattle, WA 98125-1178.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Randi J. Austell, King Co Pros Attorney, 516 3rd Ave 5th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104.
PER CURIAM.
Jack Mempa appeals from the judgment and sentence entered in King County Superior Court following his conviction for one count of delivery of a controlled substance. The State concedes that the trial court erred in denying Mempa’s motion for a change of venue under CrR 5.1(c). We accept the State’s concession and reverse Mempa’s conviction.
Mempa was charged in King County with one count of delivery of a controlled substance. Prior to the omnibus hearing, he moved for a change of venue, arguing that the offense occurred in Snohomish County. The trial court eventually denied Mempa’s motion.
Where there is reasonable doubt whether an offense has been committed in one of two or more counties, the action may be commenced in any of the relevant counties. CrR 5.1(b). But CrR 5.1(c) provides that if a case is filed under CrR 5.1(b), the defendant “shall have the right to change venue to any other county in which the offense may have been committed.” Because Mempa moved to change venue to Snohomish County prior to the omnibus hearing, the motion was timely under CrR 5.1(c), and the trial court erred in denying Mempa’s motion. See State v. Dent, 123 Wn.2d 467, 480, 869 P.2d 392 (1994). Accordingly, we accept the State’s concession of error and reverse Mempa’s conviction.
Mempa also alleges several sentencing errors. Because we reverse Mempa’s conviction, we do not address these contentions.
Mempa’s conviction is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.