State Of Washington, V. Benjamin Carl Bloom, 81079-1

Benjamin Bloom, a tenant of his parents Robert and Sally Richards, confronted them after finding an eviction notice and entered their home armed with a handgun.
Over ~30 minutes Bloom assaulted Robert and Sally: threatening with and striking them with the gun, kicking Robert, smashing Sally’s laptop against her head, and demanding information.
Sally created a diversion to allow Robert to retrieve a second handgun hidden in a bedroom; Robert shot at Bloom, hitting him twice; Bloom returned fire, wounding Robert in the leg, and exchanged further gunfire while fleeing.
The State charged Bloom with first-degree assault (Robert), two counts of second-degree assault (one as to Robert, one as to Sally), and first-degree burglary. The jury convicted on the three assault counts and acquitted burglary.
The trial court entered judgment on both Robert-related assault convictions, sentenced Bloom to an effective term with firearm enhancements, and imposed community custody with a judgment provision ordering payment of supervision fees as determined by DOC.
On appeal Bloom argued (1) entry of judgment on both Robert-related assault counts violated double jeopardy and (2) the supervision-fee requirement was erroneously imposed despite the trial court’s waiver of nonmandatory fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entering judgment on both first-degree assault (count 1) and second-degree assault (count 2) as to Robert violated double jeopardy	Bloom: the first-degree and second-degree convictions as to the same victim are the "same offense" and cannot both support judgment	State: each conviction was based on distinct acts (beating/questioning vs. later shooting) and thus separate units of prosecution	Court: No double jeopardy violation; convictions were based on separate acts under the multi-factor course-of-conduct test
Whether the judgment’s requirement that Bloom pay DOC-determined supervision fees should stand	Bloom: trial court waived nonmandatory fines/fees at sentencing, so supervision-fee requirement conflicts with waiver	State: argued Bloom waived appellate review by not objecting at trial (also defended fee)	Court: Fee must be vacated; sentencing transcript shows waiver of nonmandatory fines/fees, so remand to strike supervision-fee requirement

Hughes v. State, 166 Wn.2d 675 (2009) (double jeopardy standards and review explained)
Fuller v. State, 185 Wn.2d 30 (2016) (double jeopardy protections overview)
Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (legislature defines the unit of prosecution)
Graham v. State, 153 Wn.2d 400 (2005) (multiple charges under same statute require separate unit-of-prosecution analysis)
Villanueva-Gonzalez v. State, 180 Wn.2d 975 (2014) (assault unit of prosecution is course of assaultive conduct and multi-factor test)
McReynolds v. State, 117 Wn. App. 309 (2003) (continuous offense/course-of-conduct discussion)
Dillon v. State, 12 Wn. App. 2d 133 (2020) (supervision fees are discretionary LFOs and waivable)
Wallmuller v. State, 194 Wn.2d 234 (2019) (conditions of community custody may be challenged for the first time on appeal)