State Of Washington v. Nathan Lea Anderson, 74558-1

Nathan Anderson was convicted by a jury of domestic violence offenses; the trial court waived all nonmandatory legal financial obligations but imposed a $500 mandatory victim penalty assessment (VPA) under RCW 7.68.035.
Anderson raised, for the first time on appeal, an as-applied substantive due process challenge: that imposing the mandatory VPA on an indigent defendant violates due process.
The trial record contains no evidence that the State has sought to collect the VPA or has sanctioned Anderson for nonpayment; the trial court found Anderson indigent.
The Court of Appeals treated the challenge as a preenforcement, as-applied constitutional claim and analyzed ripeness, standing, and procedural bars to raising the claim on appeal.
The court declined to reach the merits, relying on precedent that such challenges are not ripe until the State attempts enforcement and that defendants lack standing or cannot show manifest error before enforcement occurs.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence and denied the State’s request for appellate costs, finding no evidence Anderson’s financial circumstances had improved since the trial court’s indigency finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing the mandatory VPA on an indigent defendant violates substantive due process when challenged on appeal before enforcement	Anderson: VPA applied to an indigent violates substantive due process as applied to him	State: Challenge is premature; constitutional injury occurs only if/when the State enforces or sanctions for nonpayment	Court: Challenge is not ripe; lack of standing and RAP 2.5(a)(3) bars raising the claim for the first time on appeal absent enforcement or sanction
Whether the record permits appellate relief or manifest constitutional error without enforcement action	Anderson: Court should decide now to prevent possible future unconstitutional consequences	State: No enforcement, no showing of harm or inability to pay; merits not reviewable now	Court: No facts about future ability to pay; potential hardship insufficient to justify preenforcement review
Whether appellate costs should be awarded to the State despite trial court finding of indigency	Anderson: No costs due because trial court found him indigent	State: Sought appellate costs	Court: No award of costs; indigency finding stands and no evidence of significant financial improvement

State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660, 378 P.3d 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (preenforcement as-applied challenges to mandatory fees are not ripe until the State seeks enforcement; standing lacking absent enforcement)
State v. Sanchez-Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782, 239 P.3d 1059 (Wash. 2010) (ripeness and the relevance of a defendant's indigency at the time enforcement is attempted)
State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911, 829 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1992) (imposition of a victim penalty assessment alone does not automatically raise constitutional concerns)
State v. Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. 222, 366 P.3d 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (similar ripeness and procedural-bar principles applied to fee challenges)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (indigency finding at trial continues on appeal absent evidence of changed circumstances)