State of Washington v. Victor P. Hudak

FILED MARCH 19, 2026 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 40822-1-III Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VICTOR P. HUDAK, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )

COONEY, J. — Victor Hudak was convicted of child molestation in the first degree.

Thereafter, he moved the trial court for an order compelling his trial attorney to provide him with a copy of his client file and discovery materials. The court denied the motion.

Mr. Hudak appeals. The State concedes.

BACKGROUND In 2023, Mr. Hudak was convicted of child molestation in the first degree and sentenced to 68 months of confinement. Mr. Hudak later requested a copy of his client file and discovery materials from his trial attorney to assist him in preparing a personal No. 40822-1-III State v. Hudak restraint petition (PRP). In response to the request, Mr. Hudak’s attorney informed him that he needed the court’s permission before releasing the information. Mr. Hudak then filed a motion for an order compelling his trial attorney to provide him with a copy of his client file and discovery materials. The court denied the motion, finding that discovery had already been provided to Mr. Hudak.

Mr. Hudak appeals.

ANALYSIS A criminal defendant is entitled to a copy of his case file and discovery under CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d). “[D]isclosure must be made when a criminal defendant requests copies of his or her client file and relevant discovery at the conclusion of representation . . . no showing of need is required for disclosure.” State v. Padgett, 4 Wn.

App. 2d 851, 854, 424 P.3d 1235 (2018). “The ends of justice are best served by timely disclosure of a client file to an individual investigating the possibility of postconviction relief through a PRP.” Id. at 855.

Contrary to the court’s findings, the record is void of any evidence that “discovery has already been provided” to Mr. Hudak. Clerk’s Papers at 43. Moreover, the court neglected to address Mr. Hudak’s request for his client file. Under our holding in Padgett, the trial court was obliged to grant Mr. Hudak’s motion for disclosure of his client file and discovery materials, subject to withholdings under RPC 1.16(d) and redactions under CrR 4.7(h)(3). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Mr. Hudak’s

No. 40822-1-III State v. Hudak motion and remand for the trial court to order Mr. Hudak’s trial attorney to provide Mr. Hudak with the requested information.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

Cooney, J.

WE CONCUR:

Staab, A.C.J.

Hill, J.