State Of Washington, V. Cyrus Nelson Plush Ii, 54354-1

Background

Cyrus Plush was convicted after a 2019 bench trial of failure to register as a sex offender and sentenced to 55 months confinement plus 36 months community custody.
The trial court imposed a $500 crime victim penalty and ordered Plush to “pay supervision fees as determined by DOC,” but made no on-the-record findings about indigency or ability to pay.
The judgment contained boilerplate income-withholding language permitting payroll deductions; Plush did not object at sentencing.
On appeal (including a Statement of Additional Grounds), Plush challenged LFOs and raised claims of ineffective assistance, speedy-trial violation, vindictive prosecution, and an excessive sentence.
The Court of Appeals exercised discretion to address the LFO issues, held supervision fees are not statutorily "costs" barred for indigent defendants but remanded because the trial court failed to make the Blazina ability-to-pay inquiry, and directed amendment of the income-withholding language to protect funds covered by 42 U.S.C. § 407(a).
The court rejected Plush’s SAG claims as either outside the record or without merit and affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether community-custody supervision fees are "costs" barred for indigent defendants	Plush: fees are "costs" under RCW 10.01.160 and cannot be imposed on an indigent at sentencing	State: fees are discretionary LFOs under RCW 9.94A.703 and not covered by the statutory definition of "costs"	Court: fees are not "costs" as defined by RCW 10.01.160(2) and may be imposed on indigent defendants
Whether trial court made required Blazina individualized inquiry into ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs	Plush: court made no adequate on-the-record inquiry into current/future ability to pay	State: initially argued waiver but conceded the inquiry was inadequate	Court: remanded—trial court erred by failing to conduct an individualized Blazina inquiry before imposing supervision fees
Whether income-withholding language may permit taking funds protected by 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) (e.g., Social Security)	Plush: J&S must expressly prohibit satisfying LFOs from § 407(a)-protected funds	State: concedes error	Court: remanded—J&S must be amended to state LFOs may not be satisfied from funds subject to § 407(a)
Misc. SAG claims (ineffective assistance, speedy trial, vindictive prosecution, excessive sentence)	Plush: alleges ineffective assistance, speedy-trial violation, vindictive prosecution, and cruel/unusual sentence	State: claims are waived, outside the record, or sentence falls within standard range	Court: rejects SAG claims—ineffective assistance and other factual claims are outside record (should be raised via PRP); speedy-trial waived; sentence within standard range not cruel/unusual

Key Cases Cited

State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (requires individualized on-the-record inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay discretionary LFOs)
State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732 (identifies factors a court should consider when assessing ability to pay)
State v. Spaulding, 15 Wn. App. 2d 526 (treats community custody supervision fees as discretionary LFOs and not statutory "costs")
State v. Lee, 188 Wn.2d 473 (encourages appellate courts to exercise discretion to address LFO issues)
State v. Dillon, 12 Wn. App. 2d 133 (holds judgment should make clear protected funds under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) cannot be used to satisfy LFOs)
State v. Farmer, 116 Wn.2d 414 (standard-range sentence not cruel and unusual)