State Of Washington, V Allen Baker
48651-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Allen Baker was convicted of third-degree assault; at sentencing the State sought several LFOs (victim assessment, filing fee, appointed counsel, jail reimbursement, DNA fee).
- Defense counsel stated Baker was unemployed, on food stamps, but "potentially employable upon his release."
- The trial judge asked Baker if anything (emotional, physical, mental, financial) would prevent him from paying LFOs at a "reasonable rate, say, $25 a month." Baker replied, "I would say not."
- The court imposed the requested discretionary LFOs (except the DNA fee) and sentenced Baker within the standard range.
- Baker appealed, arguing the court failed to make an adequate Blazina-style inquiry into his current and likely future ability to pay. The State argued the inquiry was sufficient and that Baker conceded ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to make an adequate inquiry into defendant's current and future ability to pay discretionary LFOs under RCW 10.01.160(3) and State v. Blazina | Baker: the court’s colloquy was insufficiently specific and failed to consider factors Blazina requires (incarceration, debts, GR 34 indicia of indigency) | State/Baker conceded at colloquy he likely could pay; that concession relieved court of further inquiry | Court: No error — Baker’s affirmative response amounted to a concession of current/likely future ability to pay, so further inquiry was not required; remedial relief remains available post-judgment (petition for remission) |
| Whether appellate costs should be waived if the State prevails | Baker: as indigent, he should not be assessed appellate costs | State: may file a cost bill seeking appellate costs | Court: Refer any State cost bill and Baker’s objection to a commissioner under RAP 14.2 for determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (requires individualized inquiry into current and likely future ability to pay discretionary LFOs and that the record reflect the inquiry)
- State v. Mathers, 193 Wn. App. 913 (2016) (distinguishes mandatory vs. discretionary LFOs; RCW 10.01.160(3) applies to discretionary LFOs)
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (2016) (addressed appellate-cost assessment against indigent defendants)