State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 56984-1

Background

In 2008 James Ellis (age 18 at the time) shot and killed a person during an attempted robbery; he pled guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement.
In 2009 Ellis was sentenced to 240 months plus a 60-month firearm enhancement (300 months total) and ordered to pay restitution ($7,097.32 to the Crime Victim Compensation (CVC) fund), a $500 VPA, $200 criminal filing fee, $1,500 attorney fees, a $100 DNA fee, and community-custody supervision fees; the judgment provided for interest on unpaid amounts.
After State v. Blake reduced one offender point, Ellis was resentenced in July 2021; he requested the court consider his youth but asked only to reduce the term to 289 months (the court granted that reduction and left other J&S terms intact).
On appeal Ellis challenged (1) the trial court’s refusal to consider youth, (2) restitution, restitution interest, and the VPA under the Excessive Fines Clause, and (3) several legal financial obligations (DNA fee, community custody fees, filing fee, attorney fees).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the prison term but remanded to (a) let the trial court reconsider imposition/waiver of interest on restitution under a 2022 amendment, (b) determine indigency and reconsider the VPA under a 2023 amendment, and (c) strike DNA and community custody supervision fees and reconsider the criminal filing fee and attorney fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing was required because the court declined to consider Ellis’s youth	Ellis: court abused discretion / must consider mitigating qualities of youth at resentencing	State: Houston‑Sconiers applies only to juveniles; O’Dell leaves youth discretionary; Ellis was 18 so court not required	Court: No resentencing required; any error harmless because court imposed the sentence Ellis sought
Whether restitution ($7,097.32 to CVC) violates the Excessive Fines Clause	Ellis: restitution is a monetary punishment and grossly disproportional given indigency	State: restitution here compensatory and tied to victim loss, so not punitive/excessive	Court: Restitution was compensatory and not punitive here; not constitutionally excessive; upheld
Whether statutory interest on restitution violates the Excessive Fines Clause	Ellis: interest is an excessive monetary sanction	State: interest is statutory; court should apply current law	Court: New RCW (effective 1/1/2023) permits court to waive interest after considering specified factors; remand to reconsider interest under that statute
Whether imposition of the VPA violated the Excessive Fines Clause	Ellis: VPA is punitive and excessive, especially if indigent	State: VPA was properly imposed under prior law	Court: 2023 amendment bars VPA for indigent defendants and requires waiver if indigent; remand to determine indigency and reconsider VPA
Whether DNA collection fee and community custody supervision fees were properly imposed	Ellis: fees improper under current law	State: fees were imposed under prior statutory regime	Court: Legislature eliminated DNA fee rule and community-custody fee authority; remand to strike those fees
Whether criminal filing fee and attorney fees can be imposed on indigent defendant	Ellis: fees should be waived if indigent	State: no concession of indigency	Court: Remand for trial court to determine indigency under statute and then reconsider filing fee and attorney fees

Key Cases Cited

State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021) (triggered resentencing because certain PWIS boundaries invalidated)
State v. Houston‑Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1 (2017) (Eighth Amendment requires considering youth for juvenile offenders)
State v. Monschke, 197 Wn.2d 305 (2021) (plurality limiting life without parole for some 18–20 year olds)
State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (2015) (trial courts may consider youth as mitigating for exceptional sentences)
City of Seattle v. Long, 198 Wn.2d 136 (2021) (framework for excessive fines analysis)
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wn.2d 272 (2005) (restitution can be compensatory and punitive in different contexts)
State v. Ramos, 24 Wn. App. 2d 204 (2022) (restitution tied to victim losses is inherently proportional)
State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732 (2018) (retroactive application of certain sentencing statute changes on direct appeal)
United States v. Dubose, 146 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1998) (restitution tied to victim loss satisfies proportionality under excessive fines analysis)