State Of Washington v. Molla Beyene, 76041-6

Appellant Molla Beyene was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and assessed a victim penalty assessment (VPA) and a DNA collection fee.
On appeal, Beyene first raised an as-applied substantive due process challenge, arguing mandatory financial obligations are unconstitutional when a defendant lacks present or likely future ability to pay.
Beyene conceded his claim was not ripe under State v. Shelton but argued Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on State v. Curry.
The court reviewed Shelton and Curry and reaffirmed that as-applied challenges to mandatory criminal financial obligations are not ripe until the State seeks collection or imposes sanctions for nonpayment.
The court also held such as-applied claims are not manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a) until enforcement occurs, and declined to exercise discretionary review because Beyene did not show a significant risk of hardship.
The court noted that even if review were proper, precedent (State v. Seward) would defeat Beyene’s due process challenge because individualized ability-to-pay determinations are rationally related to legitimate state interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of as-applied due process challenge to VPA and DNA fee	Beyene: statutes unconstitutional as applied to those unable to pay; claim can be reviewed on appeal now	State: challenge not ripe until State attempts collection or imposes sanctions	Not ripe; must await enforcement per Shelton/Curry
RAP 2.5(a) manifest constitutional error exception	Beyene: appellate review should be allowed despite not being raised below	State: no manifest constitutional error until enforcement; exception inapplicable	No manifest constitutional error; RAP 2.5(a) does not permit review now
Validity of Shelton reliance on Curry	Beyene: Shelton wrongly decided because Curry is distinguishable	State/Court: Curry still supports ripeness rule; Shelton stands	Court adheres to Shelton and Curry; ripeness rule affirmed
Merits of as-applied due process challenge if ripe	Beyene: mandatory fees without ability-to-pay violate due process	State: individualized determination before waiving/collecting is rational	On merits, precedent (Seward) rejects Beyene’s claim; fees survive

State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (app‑as‑applied due process challenges to criminal fees not ripe until collection/enforcement)
State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (ripeness rule: challenge to financial obligations awaits enforcement)
State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (upholding imposition of VPA, DNA fee, and filing fee as rationally related to state interest despite lack of prior individualized ability‑to‑pay determination)
State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531 (standards for appellate review and ripeness considerations)
State v. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. 709 (applying Shelton; rejecting as‑applied challenge to mandatory VPA)
State v. Tyler, 195 Wn. App. 385 (applying Shelton to mandatory VPA and rejecting related arguments)

Affirmed.