State Of Washington, V. James Douglas Mattson ( 2024 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
April 16, 2024
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 57874-3-II
Respondent,
v.
JAMES DOUGLAS MATTSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
CRUSER, C.J. – James Douglas Mattson appeals from his guilty plea convictions for
numerous counts of voyeurism. He argues that we should remand this matter to the trial court to
strike the $500 victim penalty assessment (VPA) and the $100 DNA collection fee imposed by the
trial court in light of recent amendments to RCW 7.68.035 and RCW 43.43.7541. The State
concedes that remand to strike the VPA and the DNA collection fee is appropriate. We accept the
State’s concession.
FACTS
At the sentencing hearing following his guilty plea, the trial court found that Mattson was
indigent pursuant to RCW 10.101.010(3). The trial court then imposed a $500 VPA and a $100
DNA collection fee.
ANALYSIS
Mattson asks that we remand this matter to the trial court to strike the VPA and the DNA
collection fee in light of recent amendments to RCW 7.68.035 and RCW 43.43.7541. He argues
No. 57874-3-II
that the recent amendments to these statutes provide that the VPA shall not be imposed on
defendants who, like himself, are indigent at the time of sentencing and that the DNA fee shall no
longer be collected. LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449, § 1, 4. The State concedes that remand for purposes
of striking the VPA and the DNA collection fee from Mattson’s judgment and sentence is
appropriate.
Because Mattson’s case is currently on direct appeal, these statutory amendments apply to
Mattson. See State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 749, 426 P.3d 714 (2018) (statutory amendments
pertaining to costs imposed upon conviction that take effect after sentencing apply to cases pending
on appeal). Thus, we accept the State’s concession.
Accordingly, we remand for the superior court to strike the $500 VPA and the $100 DNA
collection fee from Mattson’s judgment and sentence.
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.
CRUSER, C.J.
We concur:
LEE, J.
GLASGOW, J.
2