State v. Stone
268 P.3d 226
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Stone was ordered to pay LFOs after a 2001 conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and second degree theft, with remaining LFOs totaling about $3,179.81.
- In 2003, DOC notified that Stone would no longer supervise him; billing for LFOs would continue via the Jefferson County clerk.
- December 2003 order placed Stone on a pay or appear program, warning that nonpayment could lead to warrants and jail or collection actions.
- From 2003 to 2009 Stone made many payments but intermittently failed to pay or appear, leading to bench warrants and multiple pay or appear orders.
- At the March 23, 2009 proceeding, Stone appeared in custody without counsel, and the court imposed jail time without addressing his ability to pay; later, a October 2, 2009 hearing included a willfulness finding but without proper income/ability-to-pay inquiry.
- Court holds LFO enforcement proceedings may trigger due process rights to counsel and that jail time imposed without proper willfulness inquiry or ability-to-pay analysis violates due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LFO enforcement is civil or criminal and requires counsel | Stone argues due process requires counsel at LFO hearings | State argues statutes treat as civil contempt under RCW 10.01.180 | LFO enforcement is criminal in nature and Stone had due process right to counsel |
| Right to counsel at LFO hearings and waiver validity | Stone did not knowingly waive counsel; no proper advisement | Stone signed rights document and failed to request counsel | Waiver not valid; reversal and vacatur of March 23 order for lack of counsel |
| Due process, willful nonpayment findings at March 23 hearing | Court failed to assess ability to pay before jail | Court found willfulness based on nonpayment | March 23 order vacated for lack of willfulness/ability-to-pay inquiry |
| Due process, willful nonpayment findings at October 2 hearing | Record showed possible nonpayment due to indigence | Court could find willful nonpayment | October 2 should be vacated for improper consideration of willfulness and lack of income inquiry |
| Remand or reissue following due process violations | Need correct procedures | Proceedings otherwise proper under law | Remand for proceedings consistent with due-process standards |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nason, 168 Wash.2d 936 (2010) (distinguishes civil contempt from criminal LFO sanctions and credits)
- Tetro v. Tetro, 386 U.S. 252 (1975) (right to counsel in contempt may depend on potential incarceration)
- Scarpelli v. United States, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (case-by-case basis for counsel in revocation-type proceedings)
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (high court: due process may not require counsel in civil contempt when imprisonment is not imminent)
- Smith v. Whatcom County Dist. Ct., 147 Wash.2d 98 (2002) (civil contempt framework; due process in nonpayment actions)
- State v. Watson, 160 Wash.2d 1 (2007) (funds modifications as criminal sentence-like sanctions under RCW 9.94B.040)
- Prado, 86 Wash.App. 573 (1997) (statutory interpretation of LFO enforcement)