State Of Washington v. Justin Walter Woodard, 75118-2

Justin Woodard convicted of second-degree aggravated domestic violence; appellate challenge to mandatory victim penalty assessment (VPA) and DNA collection fee.
Woodard raises, for the first time on appeal, an "as-applied" substantive due process challenge: statutes imposing mandatory financial obligations are unconstitutional when a defendant lacks present or likely future ability to pay.
Woodard concedes his claim is not ripe under this court's prior decision in State v. Shelton but argues Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on State v. Curry.
The State has not attempted to collect the VPA or DNA fee; no sanctions or enforcement have occurred.
The court considers ripeness and whether an as-applied challenge can be raised for the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Woodard)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ripeness of as-applied substantive due process challenge to mandatory financial obligations	Statutes are unconstitutional as applied to those unable to pay now or in future; challenge ripe upon sentencing	Challenge is not ripe until the State seeks to collect or imposes sanctions	Not ripe; challenge must await enforcement attempt
Whether Shelton was correctly decided (reliance on Curry)	Shelton wrongly relied on distinguishable Curry and should not bar immediate review	Curry supports ripeness rule; Shelton correctly held enforcement attempt needed first	Court adheres to Shelton and Curry; Curry still supports the rule
Whether as-applied due process claims may be reviewed as manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a)	Claim amounts to manifest constitutional error permitting first-time appellate review	Such claims are not manifest until enforcement; RAP 2.5(a) bar applies	RAP 2.5(a) bars review until State attempts collection or imposes sanctions
If ripe, whether mandatory imposition without individualized ability-to-pay inquiry violates substantive due process	Mandatory VPA and DNA fee without ability-to-pay finding violates due process	Such mandatory obligations are rationally related to legitimate state interests	On the merits, prior authority (Seward) supports the statutes; claim would fail

State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (1992) (ripeness rule: as-applied challenge to financial obligations is not ripe until enforcement is attempted)
State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (2016) (holding as-applied challenges to VPA and related fees are not ripe absent collection attempt; RAP 2.5(a) review barred)
State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (2016) (upholding mandatory VPA and DNA fee as rationally related to legitimate state interest)
State v. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. 709 (2016) (applying Shelton ripeness rule to similar mandatory financial obligations)
State v. Tyler, 195 Wn. App. 385 (2016) (applying Shelton to mandatory VPA; rejecting broader statutory arguments)
State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531 (2015) (discussing standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)

Affirmed.