State Of Washington v. Denise Lorraine Weiss
47942-7
Wash. Ct. App.
Nov 15, 2016

Background

  • Denise Weiss was convicted after a stipulated-record bench trial of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
  • At sentencing Weiss said she was unemployed, had not worked full-time for six years, was appealing denial of SSDI, and could not perform prior work due to disabilities.
  • The trial court found Weiss lacked present or likely future ability to pay discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) and therefore waived discretionary LFOs.
  • The court nevertheless imposed mandatory LFOs totaling $800, including a mandatory $100 DNA collection fee under RCW 43.43.7541.
  • Weiss appealed, arguing that imposing the mandatory DNA fee without consideration of her inability to pay violates substantive due process.

Issues

Issue Weiss's Argument State's Argument Held
Whether the mandatory $100 DNA collection fee violates substantive due process when imposed without consideration of ability to pay The mandatory fee is substantively unreasonable as applied to an indigent offender and thus violates due process The fee furthers legitimate state interests (funding DNA collection/analysis/retention) and imposing it on all offenders, including indigents, is rationally related to those interests because some offenders can/will pay now or in the future The court rejected Weiss’s substantive due process challenge and affirmed imposition of the mandatory DNA fee

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Mathers, 193 Wn. App. 913, 376 P.3d 1163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (sentencing courts lack discretion to waive DNA collection fee)
  • State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96, 308 P.3d 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (same)
  • State v. Schmeling, 191 Wn. App. 795, 365 P.3d 202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for constitutional challenges)
  • Amunrud v. Board of Appeals, 158 Wn.2d 208, 143 P.3d 571 (Wash. 2006) (substantive due process protects against arbitrary and capricious government action)
  • Nielsen v. Department of Licensing, 177 Wn. App. 45, 309 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (explaining rational-basis review in due process context)
Read the full case