State Of Washington, V Chris Allen Forth
47702-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- In 1994 Forth was convicted of first-degree child molestation and bail jumping; he fled during his 1995 appeal and was later apprehended in Idaho.
- This court affirmed his conviction in a prior appeal (Forth I) and remanded for correct credit for time served in Idaho.
- A commissioner of the Court of Appeals awarded appellate costs of $5,600.72; the mandate including that award issued in January 2015.
- At a June 12, 2015 remand hearing the parties agreed to increase Forth’s jail credit from 191 to 204 days and the court entered that credit.
- At the same hearing the sentencing court, citing the court-of-appeals mandate and RCW 10.73.160(3), added $5,600.72 in appellate costs to Forth’s judgment despite Forth’s statement that he could not afford the obligation.
- Forth appealed, arguing the court should have inquired into his ability to pay before imposing appellate costs; he also challenged the 204-day credit in a statement of additional grounds (SAG).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court erred by adding $5,600.72 in appellate costs without inquiring into Forth’s ability to pay | Forth: court must inquire into current/future ability to pay before imposing costs (Blazina-based ability-to-pay inquiry) | State: appellate cost award from commissioner became part of judgment under RCW 10.73.160(3); sentencing court must enter costs per mandate | Court: No error — once commissioner awarded costs and no timely motion to modify, RCW 10.73.160(3) and the appellate mandate required the trial court to add costs; inquiry not required at that time |
| Whether Forth was entitled to more than 204 days’ credit for time served in Idaho | Forth: (in SAG) argues credit was incorrect and insufficient | State: parties agreed to 204 days at remand hearing | Court: Waived — parties stipulated to the 204-day credit at hearing and Forth made no objection |
| Whether Forth had sought remission of costs at the hearing, which would require a remission inquiry | Forth: asserted inability to pay and implied request to avoid costs (argues Blazina) | State: no petition for remission was made; remission requires a petition under RCW 10.73.160(4) | Court: No petition was made; remission was not requested and thus not considered; Forth may seek remission later |
| Whether the sentencing court lost jurisdiction to amend the judgment and add LFOs under RCW 9.94A.760(4) | Forth: vague claim that court lost jurisdiction to amend judgment/add LFOs | State: Forth remained incarcerated so court retained jurisdiction under statutory period | Court: No jurisdictional problem — sentencing court retains authority while Forth is incarcerated |
Key Cases Cited
- Blazina v. State, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (ability-to-pay inquiry for LFOs established)
- Bartholomew v. State, 104 Wn.2d 844 (1985) (statutory “shall” is generally mandatory)
- Wright v. State, 97 Wn. App. 382 (1999) (trial court must follow Court of Appeals mandate to add appellate costs)
- McFarland v. State, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (personal restraint petition as vehicle for certain postconviction challenges)
- Goodwin, In re Pers. Restraint of, 146 Wn.2d 861 (2002) (stipulations waive later challenges to facts)