State v. Johnson
179 Wash. 2d 534
Wash.2014Background
- Johnson had a license suspension by DOL for failing to pay a traffic fine after a 2007 infraction; he was later convicted of DWLS 3rd in 2008 for driving with a suspended license; his appeal argued the DWLS 3rd statute covers failure to pay and that suspension was unconstitutional for indigence; he sought reimbursement for attorney fees and challenged denial of appointed counsel for his appeal; the court held the statute’s plain meaning supports DWLS 3rd conviction for failure to pay and remanded on indigence-related fee issues; dissent argued Johnson was not guilty under DWLS 3d and questioned the cross-referencing approach
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to pay a traffic fine falls within former RCW 46.20.342(l)(c)(iv). | Johnson | Johnson | Yes; statute unambiguous, includes failure to pay as underlying basis |
| Whether Johnson has standing to challenge the license suspension on constitutional grounds. | Johnson | Johnson | No standing; not constitutionally indigent |
| Whether the district court erred in denying appointed counsel for Johnson's appeal. | Johnson | Johnson | Remanded to determine statutory indigence and costs; counsel issue to be reconsidered |
| Whether Johnson is constitutionally indigent under Bearden/Blank while statutorily indigent. | Johnson | Johnson | Constitutional indigence not established; remand on statutory indigence for costs |
| Whether the court should reimburse Johnson’s appellate attorney fees. | Johnson | Johnson | Granted for review; district court to determine reasonable fees on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (due process and equal protection require inquiry into ability to pay before punishing for nonpayment)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971) (indigence considerations in fines and penalties)
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (indigence and due process protections in fines)
- State v. Smith, 155 Wn.2d 496 (Wash. 2005) (underlying suspension essential element of DWLS; need to prove cause of suspension)
- State v. Gray, 174 Wn.2d 920 (Wash. 2012) (statutory interpretation seeks plain meaning and legislative intent)
- State v. Siers, 174 Wn.2d 269 (Wash. 2012) (statutory interpretation de novo; plain meaning governs)
- State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571 (Wash. 2010) (canon against rendering language superfluous in cross-references)
- State v. Hecht, 173 Wn.2d 92 (Wash. 2011) (statutory indigence definitions apply to appointed counsel rights)
- RCW 46.63.060, — (—) (not to be included; placeholder not a case)