State Of Washington v. Spencer D. Grant
196 Wash. App. 644
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Spencer Grant appealed convictions for failure to register as a sex offender and bail jumping; this court affirmed.
- After the decision, the State submitted a bill for appellate costs under RAP 14.4 and RCW 10.73.160.
- Grant filed an objection to the State’s cost bill under RAP 14.5; the commissioner awarded costs to the State, relying on Division One’s decision in Sinclair and stating he lacked discretion to waive costs under RAP 14.2.
- Grant moved to modify the commissioner’s ruling under RAP 17.7; the motion was referred to a panel for decision.
- Grant argued (1) that a motion to modify after objecting to the cost bill is a timely vehicle to challenge appellate costs, and (2) that appellate costs should be waived because he remained indigent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to modify a commissioner’s award is a timely means to challenge appellate costs after an objection to the cost bill | Grant: motion to modify is timely and appropriate after filing an objection to the cost bill | State: costs routinely awarded to prevailing party under RAP 14.2; challenges should be in briefing or reconsideration (per Sinclair) | Court: motion to modify after an objection is a timely vehicle; appellate court retains discretion to review commissioner rulings |
| Whether appellate costs should be imposed on an indigent appellant | Grant: appellate costs should be waived due to presumed continued indigency and Blazina concerns | State: prevailing party presumptively entitled to costs absent direction otherwise | Court: exercised discretion to waive appellate costs given Grant’s presumed indigency and Blazina policy concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn. App. 380 (appellate court may consider cost challenges raised in briefing or reconsideration)
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (indigency under GR 34 warrants careful consideration before imposing legal financial obligations)
- State v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620 (appellate courts have discretion whether to award appellate costs)
- State v. Stump, 185 Wn.2d 454 (interpretation of court rules: determine drafter’s intent and consider context)