State Of Washington, V. Adam Michael Don Workman ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                Filed
    Washington State
    Court of Appeals
    Division Two
    April 12, 2022
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                No. 55908-1-II
    Respondent,
    v.                                                     UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    ADAM MICHAEL DON WORKMAN,
    Appellant.
    MAXA, P.J. – Adam Workman appeals the judgment and sentence entered after his
    convictions on multiple charges. Workman argues, and the State concedes, that (1) the judgment
    and sentence contains a scrivener’s error and (2) the trial court failed to conduct an adequate
    inquiry into his ability to pay before imposing attorney fees as a discretionary legal financial
    obligation (LFO). We accept the concession, and remand for the trial court to correct the
    scrivener’s error and to properly inquire into Workman’s ability to pay before imposing attorney
    fees as an LFO.
    FACTS
    In April 2021, Workman was convicted of multiple offenses after a jury trial. The trial
    court entered a judgment and sentence that stated that the jury found an aggravating
    circumstance of domestic violence under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h). As part of the sentence, the
    court imposed as LFOs $500 in attorney fees and community custody supervision fees as
    determined by the Department of Corrections.
    No. 55908-1-II
    Workman appeals the recitation of the domestic violence aggravating circumstance and
    the imposition of the LFOs.
    ANALYSIS
    A.     SCRIVENER’S ERROR
    As the State concedes, the provision of the judgment and sentence that Workman was
    found guilty of an aggravating circumstance of domestic violence under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h)
    was an error. The court did not instruct the jury on that aggravating circumstance and the jury
    did not find that aggravating circumstance. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to remove
    this provision from the judgment and sentence.
    B.     IMPOSITION OF LFOS
    Under RCW 10.01.160(1), a trial court may require a defendant to pay “costs.” Court-
    appointed attorney fees constitute costs under RCW 10.01.160(1). In re Pers. Restraint of Dove,
    
    196 Wn. App. 148
    , 155, 
    381 P.3d 1280
     (2016). However, costs cannot be imposed on an
    indigent defendant. RCW 10.01.160(3).
    In State v. Blazina, the Supreme Court held that the trial court must conduct an
    individualized inquiry on the record about a defendant’s current and future ability to pay before
    imposing discretionary LFOs. 
    182 Wn.2d 827
    , 839, 
    344 P.3d 680
     (2015). The court must
    consider several specific factors in making this inquiry. State v. Ramirez, 
    191 Wn.2d 732
    , 742-
    44, 
    426 P.3d 714
     (2018).
    The trial court imposed $500 in attorney fees as an LFO. However, as the State
    concedes, the court did not make an adequate inquiry into Workman’s ability to pay. Therefore,
    we remand for the trial court to reconsider imposition of attorney fees as an LFO after inquiring
    into Workman’s ability to pay.
    2
    No. 55908-1-II
    The imposition of community custody supervision fees requires a different analysis. A
    discretionary supervision fee is not a “cost” as defined in RCW 10.01.160(2), and therefore the
    prohibition in RCW 10.01.160(3) of imposing “costs” on an indigent person is inapplicable.
    State v. Spaulding, 15 Wn. App. 2d 526, 536-37, 
    476 P.3d 205
     (2020). However, on remand the
    trial court is free to consider whether or not to exercise its discretion to impose community
    custody supervision fees.
    CONCLUSION
    We remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error and to properly inquire into
    Workman’s ability to pay before imposing attorney fees as an LFO.
    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.
    MAXA, P.J.
    We concur:
    CRUSER, J.
    VELJACIC, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 55908-1

Filed Date: 4/12/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/13/2022