State of Washington v. Lonnie Lee Przespolewski, 34776-1

Defendant Lonnie Przespolewski was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (2nd degree) and driving while license suspended; he was convicted on both counts and sentenced within the standard range (55 months for firearm possession, 90 days concurrent for driving).
Facts in dispute centered on whether Przespolewski knowingly possessed a .25 caliber firearm found in his mother’s Nissan Rogue after dealership employees observed behavior and the gun was returned to him by a salesperson.
Witnesses (sales staff and an officer) testified that the gun was observed in Przespolewski’s wallet/shirt and that he admitted possession; Przespolewski testified he was unaware of the gun.
During rebuttal closing the prosecutor characterized the defendant’s story as a lie and tied that characterization to witness testimony, prior convictions, and an inculpatory jail phone call.
At sentencing the judge criticized the decision to go to trial and commented that the defendant had “no chance” at trial; the court also asked about ability to pay LFOs and imposed $2,115.10 in legal financial obligations, ordering $25/month payments to start immediately.
Defendant appealed arguing (1) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, (2) sentencing vindictiveness for exercising the right to trial, and (3) that the court failed to conduct an individualized inquiry into his present and future ability to pay discretionary LFOs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct (improper opinion/vouching)	State: prosecutor properly drew inferences from evidence and undermined credibility based on record	Przespolewski: prosecutor personally vouched and opined that his testimony was a lie, depriving him of a fair trial	Court: no abuse of discretion; prosecutor tied credibility attack to evidence and did not impermissibly vouch
Sentencing comments (punished for going to trial)	State: judge’s remarks were contextual and not punitive for exercising trial rights	Przespolewski: judge penalized him for going to trial, warranting resentencing	Court: remarks taken in context did not show the sentence was imposed because he exercised trial rights; affirmed mid-range sentence
Legal financial obligations (ability to pay inquiry)	State: court asked about payment and defendant volunteered $25/month; no error	Przespolewski: court’s inquiry was cursory and failed to make individualized assessment of present/future ability to pay, especially given SSI income	Court: exercised discretionary review, found inquiry inadequate under Blazina, remanded for individualized LFO ability-to-pay inquiry

State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423 (discusses appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct and advocate-witness rule)
State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174 (prejudice standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Lewis, 156 Wn. App. 230 (permitted credibility-based closing argument tied to evidence)
State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244 (prosecutor may call defendant a liar if tied to evidence)
State v. Sandefer, 79 Wn. App. 178 (contextual analysis of sentencing remarks about pleas/trial)
State v. Richardson, 105 Wn. App. 19 (reversal when costs imposed solely because defendant rejected plea)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (requires individualized inquiry into defendant's ability to pay discretionary LFOs)