State of Washington v. Richard Eugene Cornwell, Jr.

l FILED
j
l OCTOBER 4, 2016
j In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
I STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
)
)
)
No. 33326-4-111
II V.
)
)
)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
' RICHARD EUGENE CORNWELL, JR., )
I
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. - Richard Cornwell appeals a superior court order denying his
motion to vacate legal financial obligations (LFOs ). Because the State has not yet
attempted to enforce the LFO order, Mr. Cornwell is not an aggrieved party. His appeal
is therefore dismissed.
BACKGROUND
While serving a lengthy prison sentence, Mr. Cornwell filed a motion in Walla
Walla County Superior Court to vacate LFOs. Mr. Cornwell owes over $5,000 in LFOs,
but payments are not scheduled to begin until after his release from prison, which is
projected to occur in 2025. The basis of Mr. Cornwell's motion to vacate was there had
not been a sufficient finding of ability to pay under State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344
ii
1
P .3d 680 (2015).
l
1
l
No. 33326-4-111
State v. Cornwell
The superior court denied Mr. Cornwell' s motion after holding a brief hearing.
Mr. Cornwell appeals.
ANALYSIS
Under RAP 3 .1, "[ o]nly an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate
court." Mr. Cornwell is not yet an aggrieved party as he is still in custody and no effort
has been made to enforce payment of his LFOs. State v. Mahone, 98 Wn. App. 342, 348,
989 P.2d 583 (1999). Although the trial court denied Mr. Cornwell's motion to vacate
costs, "he suffers no concrete injury until the State seeks to enforce payment and
contemporaneously determines his ability to pay." Id.; State v. Smits, 152 Wn. App. 514,
525,216 P.3d 1097 (2009). While Mr. Cornwell'sjudgment and sentence authorized the
Department of Corrections to deduct inmate wages for purposes of repayment of LFOs
under RCW 72.11.20, this authorization does not constitute a collection action by the
State "requiring inquiry into a defendant's financial status." State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App.
24, 27-28, 189 P .3d 811 (2008).
The Supreme Court's decision in Blazina does not undermine the reasoning in
decisions such as Mahone, Smits, and Crook. Blazina addressed the requirements for a
superior court's factual findings regarding ability to pay court costs. A defendant
dissatisfied with the findings set forth in his or her judgment and sentence can bring up
2
No. 33326-4-111
State v. Cornwell
this issue in a direct appeal. See State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393, 267 P.3d 511(2011) (reversing for insufficient findings pre-Blazina). But Blazina did not create a
mechanism for reopening a final judgment in cases like Mr. Comwell's where no
objections were made during the direct appeal process.
Importantly, Blazina did not reverse State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230, 930 P.2d 1213( 1997), which held the constitutional right to contest imposition of fines on the basis of
indigence is not ripe until enforcement. Mahone, Smits and Crook are all premised on
Blank. They are not undermined by Blazina.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Comwell's LFO claims are denied as they are not ripe for review. The appeal
is dismissed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Pennell, J.
WE CONCUR:
K~
rsmo, I
J
3