State of Washington v. Richard Eugene Cornwell, Jr.
33326-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Richard Cornwell, serving a long prison term, owed over $5,000 in legal financial obligations (LFOs); scheduled payments are set to start after his projected release in 2025.
- While still incarcerated, Cornwell moved in Walla Walla County Superior Court to vacate his LFOs, arguing the court failed to make sufficient findings about his ability to pay under State v. Blazina.
- The superior court held a brief hearing and denied Cornwell’s motion to vacate the LFOs.
- Cornwell appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, Division Three.
- The threshold procedural question was whether Cornwell was an aggrieved party entitled to appellate review given that the State had not yet sought to collect the LFOs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / standing to appeal | Cornwell: denial of motion to vacate LFOs can be reviewed now despite incarceration and no collection action | State: Cornwell isn’t an aggrieved party until the State attempts enforcement or contemporaneously determines ability to pay | Appeal dismissed — not an aggrieved party; claims not ripe for review |
| Effect of Blazina on post-judgment relief | Cornwell: Blazina requires vacatur for insufficient ability-to-pay findings even post-judgment | State: Blazina governs adequacy of findings on direct appeal but does not create a new mechanism to reopen final judgments absent enforcement | Blazina does not undermine need for enforcement action to ripen an indigence challenge |
| DOC wage deductions as enforcement | Cornwell: existing judgment authorizing DOC wage deductions effectively enforces LFOs now | State: Statutory authorization for deductions is not a collection action requiring an ability-to-pay inquiry | Authorization to deduct inmate wages is not a contemporaneous collection action that makes the claim ripe |
| Precedent on indigence challenge timing | Cornwell: urges Blazina’s findings requirement applies immediately | State: Pre-Blazina cases still control ripeness — constitutional right to contest fines based on indigence is not ripe until enforcement | Courts reaffirm prior ripeness rule: indigence challenge ripens upon enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (sets requirements for trial-court ability-to-pay findings when imposing costs)
- State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230 (1997) (right to contest fines on indigence grounds is not ripe until enforcement)
- State v. Mahone, 98 Wn. App. 342 (1999) (defendant not aggrieved until State seeks enforcement; no concrete injury before collection)
- State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24 (2008) (authorization for DOC wage deductions is not a collection action requiring inquiry into financial status)
- State v. Smits, 152 Wn. App. 514 (2009) (reiterating ripeness rule that ability-to-pay issues are cognizable upon enforcement)
- State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393 (2011) (direct appeal can challenge insufficient ability-to-pay findings in the judgment)