State of Washington v. Nicholas S. Roy, 34112-7

Background

Nicholas S. Roy has four felony-based legal financial obligation (LFO) judgments from 1995–2002, totaling over $30,000.
Beginning in 2008, when Asotin County clerk assumed collection responsibility, the clerk assessed an annual $100 fee on each LFO.
Roy filed four motions (one per judgment) in 2015 seeking to strike garnishment costs, fees, and renewal-of-judgment assessments; the State conceded the renewal assessments but opposed other relief.
Trial courts denied Roy's motions as to collection costs and fees; Roy appealed all four orders.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals, affirmed in part, and remanded one issue for further factual showing by the State.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roy)	Defendant's Argument (State/Clerk)	Held
1. Validity & limit of Asotin County clerk's annual $100 LFO fee	Fee exceeds clerk's authority if used to subsidize general operations; must reflect only collection costs	RCW 36.18.016(29) authorizes up to $100 annually "pursuant to" RCW 9.94A.780; fee and assessment are synonymous and allowed	Fee authorized but limited: clerk may impose up to $100 per LFO only if it does not exceed actual cost of collection
2. Burden of proof to justify the fee amount	County must prove the fee equals actual collection cost; Roy argued clerk had not shown costs justify $100	State argued Roy (challenger) bears burden and presented no contrary evidence	Court places burden on the clerk/State to justify the fees; remanded for the State to produce evidence of actual costs
3. Applicability of Blazina (indigency) to clerk's fee	Blazina prohibits imposing discretionary fees on indigent defendants without findings of ability to pay	The fee statute is discretionary for clerks and contains permissive exemption/deferment language; Blazina's requirement (court finding of ability to pay) does not apply	Blazina not extended; clerk may impose fee even against indigent defendants though clerk may exempt/defer under statute (permissive)
4. Effect of unchecked box in judgment re: "costs of collection" and garnishment costs	Unchecked box in judgments indicates trial court intended to bar collection costs; garnishment/collection costs thus invalid	Unchecked box only affects trial-court authorization; clerk has independent statutory authority (RCW 6.27.090(2)) to impose garnishment costs	Unchecked box does not bar clerk's statutory authority; garnishment costs may be imposed; trial courts' denial on this ground affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614 (discusses standard of review for statutory construction)
Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (legislative intent and statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572 (plain-meaning inquiry for statutes)
Alvarado v. Dep't of Licensing, 193 Wn. App. 171 (statutory ambiguity ends inquiry)
Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 162 Wn.2d 210 (different statutory terms may carry different meanings)
Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 109 Wn. App. 213 (burden-of-proof placement when information asymmetry exists)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (requirement for court finding of present or likely future ability to pay discretionary LFOs)
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763 (burden-shifting principles; Jolliffe quotation)
Jolliffe v. N. Pac. R.R. Co., 52 Wash. 433 (historical articulation of burden when evidence lies exclusively with one party)
Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452 (Public Records Act access and remedies)
State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (presumption of continued indigency on appeal guidelines)