State Of Washington v. Travis Thompson ( 2015 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
December 15, 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 47075-6-II
Respondent,
v.
TRAVIS W. THOMPSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
MELNICK, J.—Travis Thompson appeals his sentences for felony violation of a no-contact
order and residential burglary (domestic violence), arguing that the trial court improperly imposed
legal financial obligations (LFOs). Because Thompson failed to preserve his LFO challenge, we
affirm.
FACTS
The State charged Thompson with felony violation of a no-contact order and residential
burglary. It further alleged that these were domestic violence crimes. After a jury trial, Thompson
was convicted of violation of a no-contact order and the trial court declared a mistrial on the
residential burglary charge. Thompson later pled guilty to residential burglary as a domestic
violence offense.
47075-6-II
On December 30, 2014, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The State requested
LFOs. The court imposed a $500 victim assessment; $950.08 in court costs; $1,125 in attorney
fees; and, a $100 DNA collection fee. Thompson did not object. 1 The judgment and sentence
contained language that provided, “The court has considered the total amount owing, the
defendant’s present and future ability to pay, . . . and the likelihood that the defendant’s status will
change.” CP at 7.
ANALYSIS
Thompson contends that the trial court erred by imposing LFOs without actually
considering his ability to pay them. Thompson did not object to the LFOs at sentencing. His
sentencing occurred after our decision in State v. Blazina, 174 Wash. App. 906, 301 P.3d 492 (2013),
and before the Supreme Court's reversal of that decision in State v. Blazina, 182 Wash. 2d 827, 344
P.3d 680 (2015).
In State v. Lyle, 188 Wash. App. 848, 355 P.3d 327 (2015), we held that parties who failed
to challenge LFOs in sentencings after our 2013 decision in Blazina have waived those challenges.
See also RAP 2.5(a). Thus, under Lyle, Thompson has waived his LFO challenge.
1
His statement on plea of guilty for the residential burglary charge acknowledges that the State
would recommend “standard costs & fees.” CP at 23.
2
47075-6-II
We affirm.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
Melnick, J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Sutton, J.
3