State of Washington v. Justin Charles Taylor
33548-8
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2016Background
- Justin Taylor convicted by jury of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and second-degree possession of stolen property; concurrent sentences of 57 and 29 months.
- Criminal history included 16 prior felony convictions.
- Trial court imposed mandatory legal financial obligations (LFOs): $500 victim assessment, $200 criminal filing fee, $100 DNA collection fee (RCW 43.43.7541), and $500 restitution.
- Taylor did not object at trial and raised no constitutional challenges below regarding the DNA fee or inability to pay.
- On appeal Taylor argued the mandatory $100 DNA fee violates substantive due process and equal protection when assessed against defendants who cannot pay, and that ordering DNA collection was improper if his DNA was already on file.
- Court declined to address the newly raised constitutional claims for lack of preservation and insufficient record evidence; it affirmed the sentence and found no error in the collection order given the judgment form carved out samples already on file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 43.43.7541's $100 DNA collection fee violates substantive due process when applied to indigent defendants | Taylor: assessing the fee against those who cannot pay does not rationally further the State's interest in funding the DNA database | State: statute serves legitimate interest; Taylor failed to preserve the claim and record lacks evidence of inability to pay | Court declined to reach the merits; claim waived for failure to raise below and no manifest constitutional error shown due to insufficient record |
| Whether the statute violates equal protection by causing multiple payments for some defendants | Taylor: irrational that some previously sentenced defendants may pay multiple times while others pay once | State: preservation lacking and record insufficient to resolve alleged disparate treatment | Court declined to address on appeal for lack of preservation and insufficient record |
| Whether the court abused discretion by ordering another DNA collection despite possible prior collection | Taylor: RCW 43.43.754(2) precludes collection if State Patrol already has a sample; he claims no evidence his DNA is absent from lab | State: judgment form and statute exempt collection if sample already on file; Taylor offered no evidence sample exists | Court found no error; judgment included the statutory exception and record lacked evidence that sample was already on file |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Ambers, 160 Wn.2d 543 (party generally may not raise new arguments on appeal)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (manifest error affecting constitutional rights may be raised for first time on appeal)
- State v. Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. 222 (preservation rule applied to challenges to DNA fee and related issues)
- State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230 (constitutional challenge to recoupment depends on defendant's financial circumstances at time of collection)
- State v. Thornton, 188 Wn. App. 371 (challenge that DNA already on file is reviewable only if record indicates lab possession of sample)