State v. Catling, 438 P.3d 1174

Background

Defendant Jason Catling pleaded guilty to one count of heroin delivery and was sentenced; at sentencing his only income was Social Security disability (about $753/month) and he was indigent.
The trial court imposed mandatory legal financial obligations (LFOs): $500 crime victim assessment, $200 criminal filing fee, and $100 DNA collection fee, and ordered $25/month payments to begin Jan 2017.
Catling moved to reconsider, arguing Wakefield and 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) barred using SSDI to satisfy LFOs; the trial court denied the motion and Catling appealed.
Division Three of the Court of Appeals affirmed the imposition of the LFOs but remanded to clarify that LFOs may not be satisfied from funds protected by § 407(a); Catling sought review.
The Washington Supreme Court held HB 1783 (2018) applies under Ramirez, which (1) prohibits imposing the $200 filing fee on indigent defendants and (2) makes the DNA fee nonmandatory if a prior sample was collected; only the $500 crime victim assessment remained mandatory.
The Court ruled the trial court erred in ordering payments from SSDI (payment schedule) but affirmed that mandatory LFOs may be imposed as judgments so long as SSDI funds cannot be used to satisfy them; remanded to strike improper fees, confirm prior DNA collection, remove interest, and revise repayment terms to bar use of § 407(a) funds.

Issues

Issue	Catling's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 407(a) prohibits imposing mandatory LFOs on someone whose only income is SSDI	Wakefield: courts may not impose LFOs on persons whose only income is SSDI; mandatory LFOs should be barred	Mandatory LFO statutes remain valid; § 407(a) only protects SSDI from being used to satisfy debts, it does not erase obligations	Mandatory LFOs can be imposed, but § 407(a) prevents using SSDI to satisfy them; only the crime victim assessment remained mandatory after HB 1783
Whether a payment schedule directing SSDI recipient to pay violates § 407(a)	Any order directing payment from SSDI violates § 407(a)	Court may impose obligations but must not enforce them against SSDI; payment orders should be corrected	Ordering a $25/month payment from SSDI violated § 407(a); payment schedule must be stricken or revised to prohibit use of SSDI
Whether HB 1783 (2018) applies retroactively to this pending appeal (effect on LFOs)	Not raised by Catling as primary, but remedies sought included striking certain fees	State conceded some fees improperly imposed and argued for remand to monitor income	Under Ramirez, HB 1783 applies; $200 filing fee improperly imposed on indigent defendant and must be struck; DNA fee may be struck if prior sample exists; interest eliminated on nonrestitution LFOs
Whether the DNA collection fee was mandatory here	Catling argued fees improper under HB 1783 and Ramirez if prior DNA taken	State conceded need to check if prior DNA collection occurred	Remanded to determine whether Catling previously provided a DNA sample; if so, $100 fee must be stricken

Key Cases Cited

City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596, 380 P.3d 459 (Wash. 2016) (held courts may not order payment from SSDI when SSDI is the defendant's sole source of income in remittitur/payment-schedule context)
State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2018) (held 2018 LFO reforms in HB 1783 apply to cases pending on direct review)
Washington State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371 (2003) (construed “other legal process” in § 407(a) and held certain administrative reimbursements did not violate the antiattachment statute)
In re Lampart, 306 Mich. App. 226, 856 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (upheld underlying restitution order but held § 407(a) bars using SSDI to satisfy restitution; obligation survives for enforcement from other sources)