State Of Washington v. Jorge Domingo Barrios-nunez, 76406-3

Jorge Barrios-Nunez pleaded guilty to aggravated domestic violence assault in the second degree and was ordered to pay a victim penalty assessment (VPA) and a DNA collection fee.
On appeal he challenged, for the first time, the constitutionality of statutes imposing mandatory financial obligations on defendants who lack present or likely future ability to pay.
He conceded his claim was not ripe under State v. Shelton but argued Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on State v. Curry.
The Court of Appeals analyzed ripeness and whether an as-applied substantive due process challenge to mandatory fees is reviewable before collection efforts or sanctions.
The court followed Shelton and Curry, holding such as-applied challenges are not ripe until the State seeks collection or imposes sanctions; it also noted prior decisions applying Shelton to VPA and DNA fees.
The court further held that even if ripe, Barrios-Nunez’s as-applied challenge would fail under Seward, which found mandatory assessments rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of as-applied challenge to mandatory financial obligations	Barrios-Nunez: statutes are unconstitutional as applied to those unable to pay; should be reviewable now	State: challenge not ripe until collection pursued or sanctions imposed	Not ripe; review deferred until State seeks collection or sanctions
Whether Shelton/Curry control ripeness analysis	Barrios-Nunez: Shelton wrongly relied on distinguishable Curry	State/Court: Curry supports ripeness rule in Shelton	Court adheres to Curry and Shelton; ripeness rule stands
Whether RAP 2.5(a) allows first-time appellate as-applied claims	Barrios-Nunez: asks review under RAP 2.5(a) despite lack of manifest error	State: no manifest constitutional error until collection/sanction; RAP 2.5(a) review discretionary and not warranted	RAP 2.5(a) does not permit review absent manifest error; court declines to exercise discretion here
Merits of as-applied substantive due process challenge	Barrios-Nunez: mandatory VPA and DNA fee violate substantive due process when defendant cannot pay	State: fees rationally related to legitimate state interest	On merits (alternatively), challenge fails under Seward; imposition is rationally related to state interest

State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (court adopted ripeness rule that as-applied challenges to financial obligations are not reviewable until collection is attempted)
State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (ripeness and RAP 2.5(a) analysis applied to mandatory fees; challenges not ripe until enforcement)
State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (upheld imposition of VPA and DNA fee as rationally related to legitimate state interest)
State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531 (discusses standards governing appellate review and ripeness in criminal fines context)