State of Washington v. Derrick Stephen Haney, 34450-9

Derrick Haney pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree child rape and was sentenced with legal financial obligations (LFOs), including a mandatory DNA collection fee (RCW 43.43.7541) and a victim penalty assessment (RCW 7.68.035).
More than three years after his plea, Haney moved to modify/terminate the LFOs, arguing the sentencing court failed to conduct the Blazina inquiry (assessing ability to pay and consequences of LFOs on rehabilitation).
The trial court initially denied the motion, but later granted it and ordered Haney transported for a resentencing hearing.
At resentencing the court waived all discretionary LFOs and associated interest.
On appeal Haney challenged, on substantive due process grounds, the constitutionality of imposing the two statutes’ fees on offenders who are indigent or lack the ability to pay, arguing application to indigent offenders is not rationally related to legitimate state interests.
Haney also requested waiver of appellate costs; the court declined to consider that request because he failed to follow the court’s procedure for demonstrating indigence for cost waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCW 43.43.7541 (DNA fee) is unconstitutional as applied to indigent offenders under substantive due process	Haney: applying the mandatory DNA fee to those who cannot pay lacks a rational relation to legitimate state interests	State: rational basis applies; the fee funds legitimate state functions and some offenders (including some indigent at sentencing) will be able to pay	Court: upheld statute; rationally related to legitimate state interests as applied to all offenders
Whether RCW 7.68.035 (victim penalty assessment) is unconstitutional as applied to indigent offenders under substantive due process	Haney: victim penalty assessment is irrational when imposed on those without ability to pay	State: assessment serves legitimate funding purposes and survives rational basis review	Court: upheld statute; rationally related to legitimate state interests as applied to all offenders
Whether appellate costs should be waived	Haney: requests waiver because he is indigent and unlikely to be able to pay	State/Court: appellant must follow established procedure to present evidence of indigence for waiver	Court: denied consideration of waiver request for failure to follow general order; denial without prejudice to proceeding before the commissioner

State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (Blazina requires inquiry into ability to pay and collateral consequences before imposing discretionary LFOs)
State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (2016) (upheld statutory fees under rational basis review as applied to indigent offenders)
State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620 (2000) (appellate courts have discretion under RAP 14.2 to deny costs based on demonstrated inability to pay)