State Of Washington v. Khali Islam, 75349-5

Khalil Islam convicted of second-degree assault; court imposed a victim penalty assessment (VPA) and DNA collection fee.
Islam raises, for the first time on appeal, an as-applied substantive due process challenge to the mandatory VPA and DNA fee based on inability (and likely future inability) to pay.
He concedes his claim is not ripe under State v. Shelton but argues Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on State v. Curry.
The Court of Appeals panel reviews whether Shelton’s ripeness rule controls and whether the claim can be considered under RAP 2.5(a) as manifest constitutional error.
The State does not intend to pursue costs on appeal; the court affirms the lower-court financial obligations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of as-applied challenge to mandatory financial obligations	Islam: statutes are unconstitutional as applied even before collection efforts	State/Shelton: as-applied due process claims not ripe until the State attempts collection or sanctions	Not ripe; challenge must await enforcement attempt
Whether Shelton was correctly decided or should be distinguished from Curry	Islam: Shelton relied on distinguishable Curry and is wrongly decided	Court: Curry still supports the ripeness rule used in Shelton	Court adheres to Shelton and Curry supporting ripeness requirement
Whether the claim qualifies as "manifest" constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a) allowing first-time appellate review	Islam: asks appellate review now despite Shelton	Court: not manifest because no enforcement or sanction has occurred; discretion to review not warranted here	RAP 2.5(a) bar applies; no manifest error shown
Merits if ripe: constitutionality of imposing VPA and DNA fee without individualized ability-to-pay inquiry	Islam: mandatory imposition violates due process as applied to those unable to pay	State (and Seward): imposing fees before individualized inquiry is rationally related to legitimate state interests	Even if ripe, prior precedent (Seward) upholds imposition; claim would fail

State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (ripeness rule: as-applied due process challenges to financial obligations not ripe until collection/enforcement)
State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (Wash. 1992) (ripeness principle supporting post-enforcement review)
State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (upholding VPA, DNA fee, and filing fee as rationally related to state interests absent individualized pre-imposition inquiry)
State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531 (Wash. 2015) (discussing standards for appellate review and ripeness)
State v. Tyler, 195 Wn. App. 385 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (applying Shelton to mandatory VPA and rejecting extension of RCW 10.01.160(3) to mandatory obligations)
State v. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (applying Shelton and RAP 2.5(a) analysis to VPA and related fees)

Affirmed.