State of Washington v. Paul Harold Kalakosky, 32476-1

Background

Paul Kalakosky was convicted of attempted rape and four rapes (offenses in 1987) and sentenced June 19, 1989 to a long prison term; the judgment imposed unspecified legal financial obligations (LFOs) and stated the court would "retain jurisdiction" for 10 years to assure payment and DOC would monitor while he was in prison.
Kalakosky has remained in DOC custody since 1989; county clerk records showed no order extending or terminating LFO collection.
In 2011–2014 Kalakosky moved in superior court to remit LFOs, arguing the court lost jurisdiction because the State did not renew the judgment within ten years of sentencing.
The trial court denied remission, concluding the ten-year jurisdictional period for enforcing LFOs runs from release from total confinement (so remains open while Kalakosky is incarcerated).
On appeal Kalakosky argued the 1989 statutory scheme ended the court’s jurisdiction after ten years from sentencing; the State argued later statutory amendments govern and preserve jurisdiction until ten years after release (or later).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court lost jurisdiction to enforce restitution because 10 years elapsed from sentencing	Kalakosky: jurisdiction expired ten years after 1989 sentencing under the then-applicable statute	State: 1994 amendment (and later codifications) counts ten years from release, so jurisdiction persists while incarcerated	Court held the 1994 amendment applies and jurisdiction continues until ten years after release (Kalakosky remains in custody), so restitution order remains enforceable
Whether court retained jurisdiction over non-restitution LFOs (costs, fines, fees)	Kalakosky: trial court should apply statutes in effect at sentencing and jurisdiction expired	State: later statutes (now codified at RCW 9.94A.760(4)) allow enforcement up to ten years after release or ten years after judgment, whichever is later	Court held later statutory scheme applies retroactively to preserve enforcement period until ten years after release, so LFOs remain enforceable
Retroactivity / Ex post facto challenge to applying later statutes that extend enforcement period	Implicit: extending enforcement term violates defendant’s reliance or ex post facto protections	State: extension is procedural/enforcement period and constitutionally permissible when enacted before original period expired	Court found application constitutional, relying on prior Washington precedent that such extensions are permissible if enacted before original period expired
Whether sentencing court failed to consider ability to pay when imposing discretionary LFOs	Kalakosky: court should have considered his ability to pay in 1989 and seeks remand for hearing	State: procedural default; issue not raised below	Court refused to address this claim for the first time on appeal under RAP 2.5(a) and declined remand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Shultz, 138 Wn.2d 638 (1999) (holding extension of restitution enforcement period does not violate ex post facto if enacted before original period expired)
State v. Hodgson, 108 Wn.2d 662 (1987) (statute-of-limitations/ex post facto principles applicable to post-sentence extensions)
State v. Serio, 97 Wn. App. 586 (1999) (amendment to LFO enforcement period can apply retroactively to open judgments)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (appellate discretion to consider LFO challenges raised for first time in appeal; decided on direct review)
State v. Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96 (2013) (distinguishing mandatory fees that must be imposed regardless of ability to pay)