State Of Washington v. Joshua Weythman-baker, 49505-8

On August 15–16, 2016, homeowners Christopher Kendall and wife discovered two burglaries; seven operable firearms, a bolted gun safe, and a car were stolen.
Deputies investigated foreclosed homes at 150 and 170 E. Budd Drive and found stolen items at 170; a police dog located Weythman-Baker hiding in a bedroom closet and he was arrested on an outstanding warrant.
Evidence recovered in the 170 E. Budd Drive residence included a handgun and car keys belonging to Kendall; co-defendant Benjamin Betsch testified about Weythman-Baker’s involvement in the burglaries.
Weythman-Baker was charged with residential burglary, seven counts of possession of a stolen firearm, first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm (stipulating a prior serious offense), possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of stolen property, trafficking in stolen property, and bail jumping; a jury convicted him on all counts.
At trial the court admitted testimony that Weythman-Baker was arrested on an outstanding warrant over his ER 404(b) objection; at sentencing the court imposed discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) after defense counsel and the defendant effectively conceded his likely future ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Weythman-Baker)	Held
Admission of evidence that defendant was arrested on an outstanding warrant	The arrest-warrant testimony was res gestae/contextual and explained why defendant hid, so it was relevant and admissible	Testimony was irrelevant, constituted improper ER 404(b) propensity evidence, and was unduly prejudicial	Court assumed error in admission but held any error harmless (did not materially affect verdict)
Prejudice from warrant evidence to witness credibility	State relied on Betsch’s testimony; warrant evidence was context, not propensity	Warrant evidence allowed jury to infer defendant’s criminal propensity and discard reasonable doubt	Court found no identifiable impact on Betsch’s credibility; error harmless given defendant’s unchallenged stipulation of prior serious offense
Imposition of discretionary LFOs without adequate inquiry into ability to pay	Court may impose LFOs after inquiring into ability to pay	Failure to make the individualized Blazina inquiry violates RCW 10.01.160(3)	No error: defendant and counsel conceded current/likely future ability to pay, relieving court of further inquiry
Relief if concession about ability to pay proves mistaken	N/A	Concession should not preclude later relief if inability to pay exists	Court noted post-sentencing remedies exist (petition for remission, interest reduction) but affirmed LFOs imposed

State v. Halstien, 122 Wn.2d 109 (error requires reversal only if it materially affected outcome)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (trial court must make individualized inquiry into current and likely future ability to pay discretionary LFOs)
State v. Mathers, 193 Wn. App. 913 (RCW 10.01.160(3) requirement applies only to discretionary LFOs)