State of Washington v. Nathaniel Lewis Vickers, 33095-8

Nathaniel Vickers was convicted by a jury of delivery of dihydrocodeinone in a public park.
At sentencing the State requested $3,256.70 in legal financial obligations (LFOs): $1,556.70 discretionary (court costs, sheriff fees, appointed counsel, drug enforcement fund) and $1,700 mandatory (fine, victim assessment, crime lab fee, $100 DNA fee).
The trial court announced the total LFOs and set payments at $50/month, asked Vickers whether he was employed (he said "disability") and ordered payments to begin 90 days after release. Vickers did not object at sentencing.
The written judgment contained boilerplate findings that the court had considered Vickers’s past, present, and future ability to pay and found he had the ability or likely future ability to pay.
On appeal Vickers challenged (1) the court’s failure to conduct an individualized inquiry into his ability to pay discretionary LFOs and (2) the imposition of a mandatory $100 DNA collection fee as violating substantive due process; he also raised several pro se claims (right to testify, ineffective assistance, voir dire, medical care).
The Court of Appeals majority exercised discretionary review, found the individualized inquiry for discretionary LFOs insufficient, reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, and declined review of the DNA fee claim for lack of manifest error.

Issue	Vickers' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Court failed to conduct individualized inquiry into ability to pay discretionary LFOs	Trial court did not meaningfully inquire into Vickers’s present and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs	Judgment language and brief questioning about employment sufficed	Reversed and remanded: trial court must make an individualized inquiry into current and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary costs (Blazina standard)
$100 DNA collection fee violates substantive due process for indigent defendants	Imposing the fee on an indigent defendant is substantively unconstitutional	No record evidence Vickers cannot pay $100; error not manifest	Declined to review (no manifest error); fee upheld on this record
Right to testify waived or denied	Vickers claims he was denied the right to testify	Record shows Vickers personally affirmed his choice not to testify	Claim rejected
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to call witnesses; voir dire; not ensuring understanding of plea)	Counsel was deficient and prejudiced Vickers	Tactical decisions by counsel (witness decisions, voir dire strategy); many complaints rely on facts outside the record	Claims fail on direct appeal: tactical decisions presumed reasonable; some matters require collateral review

State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (court must make an individualized inquiry into ability to pay discretionary costs)
State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance due process standard)
State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222 (defendant must satisfy both Strickland prongs)
State v. Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. 222 (statutory appellate indigence does not prove inability to pay small fees)
State v. Robinson, 79 Wn. App. 386 (failure to call a witness is ordinarily a tactical decision)
State v. Johnston, 143 Wn. App. 1 (voir dire ineffective assistance framework)