413 P.3d 27
Wash. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jason Catling pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and received a suspended 24-month residential DOSA sentence; one count dismissed.
- At sentencing the court imposed mandatory LFOs totaling $800 (victim penalty assessment $500, filing fee $200, DNA fee $100) with a $25/month payment schedule.
- Catling is a long‑term Social Security disability recipient; defense argued Wakefield should bar imposing or collecting LFOs from his disability benefits.
- The trial court denied reconsideration; Catling appealed raising (1) that mandatory LFOs cannot be imposed/collected from Social Security disability as his sole income, and (2) the court should have inquired under RCW 9.94A.777 about remitting LFOs due to a mental health condition.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the LFO imposition but held collection may not be made from funds protected by 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) and remanded to amend the judgment; the mental‑health challenge was forfeited because not raised at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory LFOs may be imposed on a defendant whose sole legal income is Social Security disability | Catling: Mandatory LFOs are invalid as they effectively target protected Social Security benefits | State: The court may impose LFOs; § 407 only prevents seizure of Social Security funds, not imposition of the debt | Court: LFOs may be imposed, but per § 407(a) the State cannot collect payments from Social Security disability proceeds; judgment must state that § 407 funds are exempt |
| Whether a sentencing court must consider a defendant's mental‑health condition under RCW 9.94A.777 before imposing LFOs | Catling: Mother's statement about mental issues required further inquiry and possible remission under § 777 | State: No explicit § 777 motion or evidentiary proof was offered at sentencing | Court: Forfeited—neither Catling nor counsel invoked § 777 or offered proof; claim not preserved (may be raised on remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974) (constitutional limits on imposing financial obligations on convicted defendants)
- Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Bd., 409 U.S. 413 (1973) (§ 407 preemption analysis; Social Security benefits broadly protected from creditors)
- Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Danny Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003) ("other legal process" requires a judicial/quasi‑judicial mechanism transferring control over funds)
- City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 (2016) (Washington Supreme Court: federal law bars courts from ordering LFO payments if Social Security disability is the person's only income)
- State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230 (1997) (ability‑to‑pay principles and limits on punishing indigent defendants for nonpayment)
- In re Lampart, 306 Mich. App. 226 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (court may not enforce restitution by seizing Social Security benefits; obligor must still disclose other income/assets)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (trial court duty to inquire into ability to pay discretionary LFOs)