State of Washington v. Dwayne M. Rankin
33857-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- In 1996 Rankin pleaded guilty to second-degree felony murder; that conviction was vacated under In re Personal Restraint of Andress and he was resentenced in 2003 after pleading to first‑degree manslaughter and second‑degree assault.
- The 2003 amended sentence imposed $5,447 in costs/assessments/fines and $16,000 in restitution; restitution was ordered joint and several with codefendant Mark Johnson.
- Rankin was released August 20, 2003, and the State timely extended the LFO enforcement period in 2013 under RCW 9.94A.760(4); Rankin made regular payments but his account was mistakenly sent to private collections in 2004.
- In July 2015 Rankin moved to terminate his LFOs, arguing they had expired or should be vacated/remitted under RCW 10.01.160(3) and State v. Blazina for failure to consider ability to pay.
- The superior court remitted fines, costs, and assessments (finding manifest hardship) but denied remission of restitution (held mandatory and not remittable) and denied reconsideration and a late collateral attack seeking severance of joint restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Rankin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blazina/RCW 10.01.160(3) invalidates LFOs imposed in 2003 | Judge failed to consider Rankin's ability to pay; LFOs should be vacated/remitted | Rankin did not object at sentencing; Blazina review is discretionary and restitution is mandatory not subject to ability‑to‑pay analysis | Untimely collateral challenge; Blazina inapplicable to mandatory restitution; claim not reviewable on appeal now |
| Whether the court abused discretion by remitting LFOs (motion to remit) | Requested termination/remission of LFOs due to hardship | Court may remit costs but cannot remit mandatory restitution; court found manifest hardship and remitted nonmandatory LFOs | No abuse of discretion: remitted fines/costs/assessments but correctly refused to remit restitution |
| Whether restitution and interest could be remitted/waived | Requested remission of restitution/interest or severance of joint liability | Restitution is statutory and mandatory; court lacks authority to remit restitution; joint/several liability part of 2003 sentence | Remission of restitution improper; severance claim is an untimely collateral attack |
| Whether collateral attack on joint and several restitution was timely | Sought severance in reconsideration (2015) | Judgment and sentence final in 2003; collateral attack statute bars relief after one year absent facial invalidity | Collateral attack untimely; no facial defect shown; sentencing court acted within statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pers. Restraint of Andress, 147 Wn.2d 602 (Washington 2002) (assault not a proper predicate felony for second‑degree felony murder)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Washington 2015) (sentencer must consider defendant's financial resources before imposing discretionary LFOs)
- State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96 (Washington Ct. App. 2013) (courts lack discretion to consider ability to pay when imposing mandatory restitution)
- State v. Griffith, 164 Wn.2d 960 (Washington 2008) (amount of restitution is within trial court discretion and review may require evidence outside the judgment)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861 (Washington 2002) (facial invalidity standard for collateral attack)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Snively, 180 Wn.2d 28 (Washington 2014) (sentence invalid on its face if unauthorized by law)
- State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12 (Washington 1971) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Conclusion: The court affirmed — nonmandatory LFOs remitted for hardship; mandatory joint and several restitution remains enforceable and collateral challenge was untimely.