the possession of a controlled substance count and the other pertains only to the possession of a controlled substance for sale count) include the cause number and the judge’s name, indicate that Winings pleaded guilty to the charges, list the charges and whether they are felonies and their maximum penalties, and state Winings’ sentence. 2 These documents were, however, submitted to this court as exhibits 1-5. 3 In addition, Winings’ argument is not supported by the cases he cites. In each of these cases, the court found the charging instrument constitutionally deficient because it failed to allege an essential element of the crime charged — not because the instrument was otherwise factually deficient as Winings asserts. See State v. Clowes, 104 Wn. App. 935, 940, 18 P.3d 596 (2001) (<HOLDING>); and State v. Franks, 105 Wn. App. 950, 959,
holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming holding that failure to identify the victim where the charge was interfering with domestic violence reporting is an omission of an essential element because the crime must be committed against a family or household member