State Of Washington v. Tommie Bernard Lewis
75162-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Tommie Bernard Lewis was convicted of fourth-degree assault in a domestic-violence case and sentenced.
- The trial court imposed the mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) and waived discretionary fees.
- Lewis did not raise a challenge to the VPA below; he raised a substantive due process claim for the first time on appeal, asserting indigence and inability to pay.
- The record contains no evidence that the State has attempted to collect the VPA or sanctioned Lewis for nonpayment.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the pre-enforcement challenge is ripe and whether the error is manifest under RAP 2.5(a)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a substantive due process challenge to a mandatory VPA is ripe before enforcement | Lewis: VPA violates substantive due process because he is indigent and cannot now or in the future pay | State/Court: Pre-enforcement challenges are not ripe until the State attempts collection or imposes sanctions | Court: Not ripe; must wait for enforcement action before adjudicating constitutional claim |
| Whether the VPA imposes a manifest constitutional error reviewable for the first time on appeal | Lewis: The VPA presently and unjustly burdens him with criminal debt, producing practical consequences | State/Court: No manifest error shown; necessary facts (attempted collection/sanctions) are absent from the record | Court: Not manifest error under RAP 2.5(a)(3); appellate review declined |
| Whether constitutional limits on discretionary LFOs apply to mandatory assessments like the VPA | Lewis: Constitutional limits on LFOs should constrain VPAs imposed on indigents | State/Court: Constitutional safeguards cited in case law apply to discretionary LFOs; mandatory VPAs are treated differently and have safeguards against imprisonment for indigents | Court: No authority extending discretionary-LFO limits to mandatory VPA; Curry and related precedent provide sufficient protections |
| Whether the court should exercise discretionary review under RAP 2.5(a) despite ripeness and manifest-error defects | Lewis: Requests discretionary review to decide the VPA's validity now | State/Court: No hardship or record evidence justifying exception | Court: Declined to exercise discretion; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (Washington 1992) (constitutional issues from inability to pay arise at enforcement; safeguards prevent imprisonment absent enforcement)
- State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (pre-enforcement challenges to mandatory fees not ripe; manifest-error review inappropriate without enforcement)
- State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (Wash. 2011) (relevant question is indigency when State attempts to sanction for nonpayment)
- State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576 (Wash. 2014) (standard for manifest error affecting a constitutional right requires actual effect on trial rights)
- State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (Wash. 1995) (no manifest constitutional error if facts necessary to adjudicate claim are absent from the record)
- State v. Duncan, 185 Wn.2d 430 (Wash. 2016) (limitations and considerations applicable to discretionary LFOs; discussion of indigency safeguards)