Personal Restraint Petition Of: Jerome Lenorda Powell Ii

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In The Matter Of The Personal No. 82809-6-I
Restraint Of:
DIVISION ONE
JEROME LENORDA POWELL II,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Petitioner.
PER CURIAM — In this personal restraint petition (PRP) proceeding, Jerome
Powell challenges legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed in the following
Whatcom County Superior Court cause numbers: 03-1-00465-3, 03-1-00353-3,
05-1-01238-5, 07-1-00102-9, 16-1-01013-2, 19-1-01175-37 (the 2019 matter),
and 20-1-00437-37 (the 2020 matter). Powell argues that in each case, the
sentencing court erroneously imposed LFOs without considering Powell’s ability
to pay. He also asserts that he is entitled to relief under RCW 10.01.160(4)1 and
that, although he sent motions to the superior court seeking relief under that
statute, the clerk’s office did not file the motions.
In its response, the State correctly observes that, with regard to the 2020
1
RCW 10.01.160(4) provides,
A defendant who has been ordered to pay costs and who is not in
contumacious default in the payment thereof may at any time after release
from total confinement petition the sentencing court for remission of the
payment of costs or of any unpaid portion thereof. If it appears to the
satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose
manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s immediate family,
the court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, modify the
method of payment . . . , or convert the unpaid costs to community
restitution hours. . . . Manifest hardship exists where the defendant is
indigent as defined in RCW 10.101.010(3)(a) through (c).”
Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 82809-6-I/2
matter, the sentencing court imposed only a mandatory victim assessment fee.
So, Powell cannot show that the LFOs imposed in therein constitute an unlawful
restraint entitling him to relief. See RAP 16.4(a) (appellate court will grant relief
in a PRP proceeding only if petitioner is under unlawful restraint); see also State
v. Mathers, 193 Wn. App. 913, 918-19, 376 P.3d 1163 (2016) (victim assessment
fee is mandatory notwithstanding defendant’s ability to pay); State v. Shirts, 195
Wn. App. 849, 858 n.7, 381 P.3d 1223 (2016) (“Mandatory LFOs are not ‘costs’
under RCW 10.01.160(1) and (2), and therefore, they are not subject to a motion
to remit under RCW 10.01.160(4).”). We deny Powell’s PRP as it relates to the
2020 matter.2
With regard to the 2019 matter, the State acknowledges that Powell was
sentenced in the 2019 matter after the effective date of the 2018 amendments to
the LFO statutes that “prohibit[ed] courts from imposing discretionary costs on a
defendant who is indigent at the time of sentencing.” State v. Ramirez, 191
Wn.2d 732, 746, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). Those amendments also prohibited the
2
Powell previously filed a separate PRP arguing that he is entitled to
resentencing in the 2020 matter pursuant to State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 491 P.3d
521 (2021). The Acting Chief Judge of this court transferred that petition to Whatcom
County Superior Court to determine what effect, if any, the Blake decision has on the
judgment and sentence in the 2020 matter. See Order Transfering Personal Restraint
Petition To Superior Court For Determination On The Merits, In re PRP of Powell, No.
82717-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2021). Based on available court records, it appears
that although a Blake resentencing was initially set in September 2021, it has since been
reset, and then stricken.
After the State filed its response to the instant PRP, Powell filed additional
documents in this court in which he appears to request that his Blake resentencing occur
in his absence and that the resentencing court revoke his drug offense sentencing
alternative sentence. These requests should be directed to the resentencing court.
Accordingly, we do not consider them. They will be placed in this court’s file without
action.
2
No. 82809-6-I/3
imposition of interest on nonrestitution LFOs. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 1. The
State concedes that Powell was indigent when he was sentenced in the 2019
matter, and it indicates it has no objection to remanding to the superior court to
strike interest accrual on nonrestitution LFOs and to strike nonmandatory LFOs
from the judgment and sentence therein. Accordingly, we remand the 2019
matter to the superior court with directions to do so.
As to the remaining matters, the State indicates that it is satisfied Powell
remains indigent and that it does not object to remanding these matters to
Whatcom County Superior Court for remission hearings.3 Accordingly, we direct
the superior court to, on remand, consider Powell’s PRP as a request for relief
under RCW 10.01.160(4), taking into account the State’s acknowledgment that
Powell remains indigent.
In sum, we deny Powell’s PRP as to the 2020 matter, and we grant
Powell’s PRP in part as to the remaining matters to the extent set forth above.
3
The State also indicates it has no objection to an order directing that certain
matters be “removed” from collections pending these remission hearings. We decline to
enter such an order.
3