381 P.3d 1223
Wash. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jason Shirts filed four RCW 10.01.160(4) motions (May 2015) seeking remission of legal financial obligations (LFOs) from four prior convictions (2002, 2006, 2008, 2012); post-2012 LFO balance grew to ~$35,824.45 due to interest.
- Shirts alleged inability to pay, denial of DOC transitional classes and classification advances because of outstanding LFOs, lack of assets, incarceration since 2012, and family hardship; he submitted affidavits and supporting materials.
- The State opposed remission, arguing Shirts lacked standing because the State had not yet attempted to collect the LFOs and relying on State v. Crook and State v. Mahone.
- The superior court denied Shirts’s motions, finding Shirts failed to allege or provide evidence that Clark County was attempting enforcement/collection, and thus declined to consider the merits.
- Shirts sought appellate review; this court granted discretionary review to decide (1) whether Shirts was an “aggrieved party” under RAP 3.1 and (2) whether the superior court erred by denying remission without a hearing because the State had not sought collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / aggrieved party under RAP 3.1 | Shirts: LFOs already cause concrete harms (DOC classification, program denial); he has present substantial interest and may appeal. | State: No collection attempt occurred, so Shirts is not yet aggrieved and lacks appellate standing (per Mahone). | Court: Shirts is an aggrieved party; Blazina undermines Mahone’s requirement that collection be attempted first. |
| Availability of relief under RCW 10.01.160(4) | Shirts: Statute allows petition "at any time"; court must consider petitions and may remit if manifest hardship shown. | State: Relief should await State collection efforts; Crook/Mahone suggest hearing only after enforcement. | Court: Petitioners may file at any time if not in contumacious default; superior court abused discretion by refusing to consider merits solely because State had not sought collection. |
| Requirement of evidentiary hearing on remission petitions | Shirts: Filing triggers some factfinding; an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine manifest hardship. | State: No statutory right to an evidentiary hearing; courts can decide on pleadings or hold hearing at discretion. | Court: Statute does not mandate an evidentiary hearing; court may decide on pleadings or hold one if deemed useful. |
| Standard/process for manifest-hardship determination | Shirts: Requests application of GR 34 standard and appointment of counsel for indigent remissions applicants. | State: Issues beyond scope; no automatic hearing or counsel required. | Court: Declined to adopt GR 34 or counsel appointment here (beyond scope of review); remanded for merits under RCW 10.01.160(4). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (recognizes widespread harms of LFOs and allows merits review of LFO imposition without waiting for collection)
- State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (denial of remission without evidentiary hearing was not error on the record before that court)
- State v. Mahone, 98 Wn. App. 342 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (held defendant not aggrieved for appellate review before state attempts enforcement; court here declines to follow in light of Blazina)