Washington v. Hudak - Criminal Case Appeal
Summary
The Washington Court of Appeals is reviewing a trial court's denial of a criminal defendant's motion to compel his former attorney to provide client file and discovery materials. The State has conceded the appeal, indicating the lower court's decision may be overturned.
What changed
This case involves an appeal by Victor Hudak, who was convicted of child molestation in the first degree, after the trial court denied his motion to compel his former attorney to release his client file and discovery materials. Hudak sought these documents to aid in preparing a personal restraint petition (PRP). The appellate court notes that criminal defendants are entitled to copies of their client files and discovery under court rules, and that the record does not show discovery was previously provided, nor did the trial court address the client file request.
The practical implication is that the trial court's denial of Mr. Hudak's motion is likely to be reversed. This reinforces the right of defendants to access their case files and discovery materials for post-conviction relief efforts. Compliance officers in legal departments should be aware of these disclosure obligations and ensure that appropriate procedures are in place for handling such requests upon the conclusion of representation, particularly when post-conviction relief is being considered.
What to do next
- Review internal policies regarding client file and discovery material disclosure upon conclusion of representation.
- Ensure compliance with CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.16(d) for post-conviction relief requests.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
State of Washington v. Victor P. Hudak
Court of Appeals of Washington
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 40822-1
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Lead Opinion
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VICTOR P. HUDAK, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION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
2
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.
3
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Washington Court of Appeals Opinions (CourtListener) publishes new changes.