State Of Washington, V. Carl Harris
84809-7
Wash. Ct. App.Mar 18, 2024Background
- Carl Harris was convicted of assault in the fourth degree, domestic violence, and the trial court imposed various legal financial obligations (LFOs), including restitution and penalty assessments.
- At sentencing, the court imposed a $500 Victim Penalty Assessment (VPA), a $100 Domestic Violence Penalty (DVP), and reserved restitution for up to 180 days.
- At the subsequent restitution hearing, the State presented only a ledger from the Crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP) as evidence of medical expenses, some of which occurred after the incident date.
- Harris objected to restitution for medical care received beyond the initial hospital exam date, arguing those expenses weren't causally tied to the assault.
- The trial court awarded the full restitution amount requested by the State, and Harris appealed the post-incident expenses and other LFOs.
- Legislative and statutory changes affecting some of the imposed fees/interest became effective while the case was on appeal, impacting the court's review.
Issues
| Issue | Harris's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution for care after incident date | Objected that State failed to prove causal link for care after Dec 29, 2018 | Sought to submit new evidence on remand | Reduction ordered; no new evidence allowed |
| Imposition of $500 VPA | Should be stricken due to Harris’s indigency | Agreed, VPA should be stricken due to new law | Ordered VPA stricken |
| Imposition of $100 DVP | Imposed based on mistaken belief it was mandatory | Prosecutor erroneously stated it was mandatory; court should reconsider | Remanded for court to exercise discretion |
| LFO collection costs and non-restitution interest | Should not be imposed on indigent defendants | Agreed to strike costs due to indigency; interest barred by statute | Ordered to strike both |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dennis, 101 Wn. App. 223 (state cannot introduce new evidence of restitution after failing to meet burden at original hearing)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (restitution only for losses causally connected to crime)
- State v. Davison, 116 Wn.2d 917 (trial court discretion in imposing restitution)
- State v. Bunner, 86 Wn. App. 158 (summary of medical treatment alone insufficient for causation)
- State v. Dedonado, 99 Wn. App. 251 (remand and correction of restitution order when State fails burden)