State Of Washington v. John Patrick Blackmon, 74567-1

Background

John Blackmon was convicted after a third jury trial of multiple child molestation and one rape-of-a-child charge; an initial sentence included an exceptional term and community custody.
This court previously remanded for resentencing because the trial court had imposed confinement plus community custody exceeding the statutory maximum.
At resentencing, the trial court imposed mandatory and discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) and included a community-custody employment requirement; Blackmon claimed disability and inability to work but submitted no supporting evidence.
The judge relied on evidence from the trials (e.g., Blackmon’s 12 years at Microsoft, ownership of a home, testimony about expense gifts, and his physical capacity for home projects) to conclude Blackmon likely had access to resources.
The judgment included boilerplate language finding Blackmon not disabled and likely able to pay LFOs; Blackmon later obtained a finding of indigency for appeal and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blackmon)	Held
Whether the trial court conducted an individualized inquiry into Blackmon’s present and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs	The court satisfied Blazina because the judge considered trial testimony and the record showing access to resources	Blazina requires an individualized inquiry; the court failed to inquire into disability or future earning capacity and relied on boilerplate findings	Affirmed — court adequately considered financial circumstances using trial record and judge’s familiarity with evidence
Whether the court’s factual findings (considered ability to pay; not disabled) are supported by the record	Findings reflect review of trial testimony and are supported by evidence of past employment and access to assets	Blackmon contends he is partially disabled and record doesn’t support finding of non-disability or ability to pay	Affirmed — findings not clearly erroneous given evidence of past employment and physical capacity to work
Whether boilerplate judgment language alone suffices under Blazina	N/A	Boilerplate insufficient by itself; needs supporting record showing individualized inquiry	Court did more than boilerplate by expressly referencing trial evidence, so LFOs may stand
Whether appellate costs should be awarded given later indigency finding	State would seek appellate costs as prevailing party	Blackmon argues indigency precludes awarding costs on appeal	Court presumes indigency; State may move to show significant improvement to recover costs

Key Cases Cited

State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (trial courts must make an individualized inquiry into current and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
State v. Clark, 191 Wn. App. 369 (Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for imposition of LFOs; abuse of discretion)
State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96 (Ct. App. 2013) (findings about ability to pay reviewed for clear error)