426 P.3d 714
Wash.2018Background
- David A. Ramirez was convicted of third-degree assault and possession of a controlled substance; sentenced to consecutive terms and ordered to pay $2,900 in LFOs, including $2,100 in discretionary attorney fees and a $200 filing fee.
- At sentencing the court asked only two questions about ability to pay, both to the State; it did not meaningfully question Ramirez or apply GR 34/indigency criteria.
- Ramirez filed and was granted a motion for indigency showing no income or assets and over $10,000 in existing debts at sentencing.
- On appeal Ramirez argued the trial court failed the individualized Blazina inquiry required before imposing discretionary LFOs; the Court of Appeals affirmed (2-1) applying abuse-of-discretion review.
- After this Court granted review, the legislature enacted House Bill 1783, which bars imposing discretionary LFOs and the $200 filing fee on defendants who are indigent at sentencing; Ramirez’s direct appeal was pending when the law took effect.
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adequacy of a Blazina ability-to-pay inquiry is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion | De novo: inquiry is a legal question (record shows what was considered) | Abuse of discretion governs sentencing decisions generally | De novo review applies to whether the court complied with Blazina; discretionary imposition itself remains subject to abuse-of-discretion principles |
| Whether the trial court conducted an adequate individualized inquiry under Blazina before imposing discretionary LFOs | Trial court failed to inquire into mandatory Blazina/GR 34 factors (debts, incarceration, employment, income, expenses) | The court relied on Ramirez’s allocution and the State’s statements to infer ability to pay | Trial court’s inquiry was inadequate under Blazina; record lacked meaningful, on-the-record consideration of required factors |
| Whether House Bill 1783’s amendments apply to Ramirez’s case on appeal | HB 1783 applies prospectively to pending direct appeals; Ramirez was indigent, so it invalidates imposed LFOs and filing fee | Legislative change shouldn’t disturb sentencing here / or should not be applied retroactively | HB 1783 applies prospectively to Ramirez’s nonfinal direct appeal; discretionary LFOs and $200 filing fee must be stricken |
| Appropriate remedy for Blazina error given HB 1783 | Strike the improperly imposed LFOs and filing fee rather than remand for resentencing | (Implicit) remand for resentencing would be the normal remedy | Because HB 1783 invalidates those charges for indigent defendants on direct review, court ordered judgment amended to strike the LFOs and filing fee (no resentencing needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (trial courts must conduct individualized on-the-record inquiry into present and future ability to pay before imposing discretionary LFOs)
- State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230 (1997) (statutes governing costs operate prospectively when the precipitating event occurs after enactment; pending appeals may benefit from new cost statutes)
- City of Richland v. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596 (2016) (GR 34 indigency standards inform courts’ assessment of ability to pay LFOs)