State Of Washington v. Abdullah Hassan Ekriem
75361-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 18, 2017Background
- Abdullah Ekriem was charged with possession of heroin and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of solicitation to possess heroin.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) under RCW 7.68.035 and waived discretionary fees.
- Ekriem raised, for the first time on appeal, a substantive due process challenge to the mandatory VPA as applied to him (arguing inability to pay).
- The record contains no evidence of collection efforts, sanctions, or other consequences from the VPA being enforced against Ekriem.
- The Court of Appeals applied its prior ripeness and manifest error analysis and also considered Seward on the rational-basis issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandatory VPA as applied violates substantive due process | Ekriem: imposing VPA on a defendant who lacks ability to pay violates substantive due process | State: VPA serves legitimate interests; imposing it on all offenders is rationally related to funding victim/witness programs; indigency may change | Claim is not ripe for review because no enforcement occurred; not manifest constitutional error on appeal. Even if ripe, fails under rational-basis precedent (Seward). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660, 378 P.3d 230 (2016) (ripeness and RAP 2.5(a) analysis for challenges to VPA until enforcement occurs)
- State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579, 384 P.3d 620 (2016) (upholding mandatory VPA under rational-basis review; VPA serves funding for victim/witness programs)
- State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911, 829 P.2d 166 (1992) (recognizing state's interest in imposing financial obligations in criminal cases)
- State v. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. 709, 379 P.3d 129 (2016) (addressing VPA-related constitutional challenges)
Conclusion: Affirmed.