State of Washington v. Jose Luis Aguilar, 34221-2

Background

Aguilar was convicted in 2014 of second-degree murder and first-degree rape of a child, receiving long consecutive sentences and discretionary LFOs totaling $34,718.97; no on-record ability-to-pay finding or Blazina inquiry occurred at sentencing.
In 2014 the judgment included $2,189.44 restitution; no appeal of the judgment is shown in the record.
In 2016 Aguilar moved to terminate discretionary LFOs, invoking Blazina and RCW 10.01.160(3); the court ordered a new sentencing hearing to assess ability to pay.
At the 2016 resentencing, Aguilar testified that wage garnishment reduced his income to about $40/month from prison earnings; the State noted he had paid some LFOs.
The trial court found a minimal present ability to pay but stated it would re-address the LFO issue upon release; it amended the judgment to reflect potential future payment ability.
The Court of Appeals remanded to strike the discretionary LFOs after concluding the evidence did not support a current or future ability to pay the total LFO amount, including interest.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s ability-to-pay finding was clearly erroneous	Aguilar argues there is insufficient evidence of current or future ability to pay.	Aguilar’s position is that payment is possible given any available assets and earnings.	Yes; the finding was clearly erroneous and LFOs must be struck.
Whether Blazina requires retroactive application for this challenge to LFOs	Blazina requires individualized inquiry into ability to pay; challenge must be reviewed.	The court followed Blazina’s framework at resentencing.	Remand proper for compliance with Blazina.
Whether the court could impose discretionary LFOs during incarceration given ongoing inability to pay principal and interest	LFOs should be limited or remitted because interest accrues and cannot be paid.	The court may require payment considering current and future prospects.	Imposition of discretionary LFOs was improper; remand to strike.
Whether the remedy is to strike discretionary LFOs rather than reduce them	Strike discretionary LFOs to maximize Aguilar’s future ability to pay.	The court may choose to modify or remit, not necessarily strike outright.	Remand to strike the discretionary LFOs.
Whether Wakefield and related authorities support striking LFOs rather than reducing them	Wakefield favors eliminating interest accumulation and ensuring actual payability.	Legislative and court policy may permit other remedial paths.	Supports striking discretionary LFOs due to lack of payability.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Wash. 2015) (require individualized inquiry into ability to pay LFOs; discretionary LFOs improper if payability not shown)
City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 (Wash. 2016) (remission/waiver of interest on LFOs and payability considerations)
In re Pers. Restraint of Flippo, 187 Wn.2d 106 (Wash. 2016) (LFO errors do not render judgment facially invalid; ripeness considerations)
State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (whether LFO issues are ripe for appeal; context of remission)
In re Pers. Restraint of Dove, 196 Wn. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (payability considerations for LFOs; post-conviction challenges)
State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing ability-to-pay findings (clearly erroneous))
State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings on payability)