State Of Washington, V Robert M. Bell
48633-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Robert Michael Bell pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced on December 10, 2014, to a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA) with various legal financial obligations (LFOs).
- Bell did not object to the sentencing LFOs and did not timely appeal the December 2014 judgment.
- On February 19, 2016, Bell admitted violating DOSA conditions; the superior court revoked his DOSA and imposed a standard-range confinement (12 months + 1 day) and community custody, carrying over the LFOs from the 2014 sentence.
- Bell appealed the LFOs after revocation, arguing the court should have inquired into his current and future ability to pay under State v. Blazina.
- The State argued the revocation was not a resentencing and Bell’s challenge to the original LFOs was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court was required at DOSA revocation to inquire into Bell’s current/future ability to pay LFOs | Bell: Blazina requires an individualized ability-to-pay inquiry at the time LFOs are imposed or carried over | State: DOSA revocation is not a resentencing; LFOs were part of the original sentence and any challenge was due then | The revocation is not a resentencing; Bell’s LFO claim was time barred because the appeal window began at the original sentencing |
| Whether the appeal was timely | Bell: timeliness should run from revocation date | State: timeliness runs from original judgment entry date | Appeal dismissed as untimely; time to appeal began December 10, 2014 |
| Whether appellate costs should be waived | Bell: requests waiver due to inability to pay | State: appellate procedures allow a commissioner to assess ability to pay | Court declined to waive costs in this opinion and noted RAP 14.2 allows a commissioner to address ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (Blazina requires individualized inquiry into defendant's ability to pay before imposing LFOs)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Wolf, 196 Wn. App. 496 (time for collateral challenges runs from initial sentencing; revocation does not restart time bar)
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (discussing waiver of appellate costs and defendant’s inability to pay)