State Of Washington v. Whitney Lee Paterno
76109-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Whitney Paterno convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; appellate challenge concerns mandatory financial obligations imposed at sentencing: victim penalty assessment (VPA), DNA collection fee, and criminal filing fee.
- Paterno raises, for the first time on appeal, an as-applied substantive due process challenge: statutes authorizing those fees are unconstitutional as applied to defendants who lack present or likely future ability to pay.
- Paterno concedes her claim is not ripe under State v. Shelton but argues Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on State v. Curry.
- The Court of Appeals adheres to Shelton: as-applied challenges to mandatory financial obligations are not ripe until the State attempts collection or imposes sanctions for nonpayment.
- The court also holds that such as-applied claims are not manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a) until enforcement occurs, so they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- The court notes that even if ripe and reviewable, Paterno’s challenge would fail under Seward, which upheld imposition of these fees prior to any individualized ability-to-pay determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutes imposing mandatory VPA, DNA fee, and criminal filing fee are unconstitutional as applied to defendants unable to pay | Paterno: statutes violate substantive due process because she lacks present and likely future ability to pay | State: challenge is not ripe; collection must be attempted before as-applied claim can be adjudicated | Not ripe; claim dismissed on ripeness grounds and appeal denied; fee imposition upheld for now |
| Whether Shelton was wrongly decided because it relied on Curry | Paterno: Shelton misapplied or wrongly relied on Curry | State/Court: Curry supports ripeness rule requiring collection attempt before review | Court adheres to Shelton; Curry is persuasive for ripeness rule |
| Whether as-applied challenges constitute manifest constitutional error under RAP 2.5(a) allowing first-time appellate review | Paterno: appellate review should be allowed despite RAP 2.5(a) because error is constitutional | State: not manifest until enforcement; RAP 2.5(a) inapplicable now | RAP 2.5(a) does not permit first-time review; error not manifest until enforcement |
| If ripe, whether imposition of fees without individualized ability-to-pay finding violates due process | Paterno: fees imposed without individualized inquiry are unconstitutional as applied | State: prior authority (Seward) upholds imposition as rationally related to state interests | Even if ripe, Seward controls and Paterno’s claim would fail; fees upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (as-applied due process challenges to mandatory financial obligations are not ripe until the State attempts collection)
- State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911 (Wash. 1992) (ripeness principle requiring collection attempt before adjudicating as-applied challenge to financial obligations)
- State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (upholding imposition of VPA, DNA, and filing fee without prior individualized ability-to-pay determination)
- State v. Cates, 183 Wn.2d 531 (Wash. 2015) (discussing limits on appellate review of nonmanifest constitutional error)
- State v. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (applying Shelton’s ripeness and RAP 2.5(a) analysis to mandatory financial obligations)