### July 11,2013
In elre Officeof the ClerkoFCourt WA State Courtof Appeals, Division 111

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

## 1 1 No. 30548-1-111 Respondent, 

## 1 1 v. 

## 1 1 LOUIS VICTOR KUSTER 

## 1 also known as LOUIS V. KUSTER, 

## 1 1 Appellant. 

## 1 PUBLISHED OPINION

SIDDOWAY, A.C.J. -Louis Kuster challengestwo terms ofthe sentenceimposed for his conviction of second degree rape: a restriction on any accesstopornography and what he characterizes as 

### an implicit findingthat he has the ability to pay $800 in legal financial obligations (LFOs), which he contends is unsupported by the record. The State concedes that the pornography restriction is unconstitutionally vague in light ofState v. Bahl, 164Wn.2d 739, 193P.3d 678 (20081, a concession we accept. We conclude that the LFOs at issue are largely mandatory fees, as to which Mr. Kuster's arguments have no application. To the extentthe court imposed costs, we declineto considerMr. Kuster's argument for the first time on appeal that the court made an unsupported, implicit finding ofhis ability to pay. We remand for the limited purpose ofNo. 30548-1-111 State v.Kuster

the trial court striking or narrowing the access to pornography condition. We otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACICGROUND Thejury found Louis Icuster guilty of second degree rape in November 20 11. At sentencing, the court imposed $800 in LFOs, consisting of a $500 victim assessment fee, $200 in court costs, and a $100 

### DNA' collection fee. Thejudgment included boilerplate language that the court had "considered the total amount owing, the defendant's past, present and future ability to pay [LFOs], including the defendant's financial resources and the likelihood that the defendant's status will change." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 31. It did not include any explicit finding that Mr. Kuster had the past, present, or future ability to pay the LFOs. Therecord ofthe sentencing hearing does not reveal the presentation or consideration of any information about Mr. Kuster's ability to pay other than the following statements by the court about his prospects for earnings during incarceration: I will set a minimum monthly payment of $5 per month. I do that because you are going tobe in the institution. I would expect at somepoint you will get employ~nent within the institution,but you are goingto be at the bottom ofthe list as 

### . . . a new person coming in. It may take a while, number one, and number two they donot pay a whole lot. It is certainly substantially less than the minimum wage. I will make your first payment due on or before June 15thbecause you are going to have to go to classifications and that might take a couplemonths before you go to an institution. And then 

# ' Deoxyribonucleic acid,NO.30548-1-111 State 

### v.Kuster

you may take some more months before you will be eligible to earn any money. Report of Proceedings (Jan.4, 2012) at 27. Mr.Kuster did not object at the sentencing hearing that his sentence included an unsupported implicit finding ofhis ability to pay the LFOs. The trial court sentenced Mr.Kuster to 114inonths with credit for tiinc served, explaining to hiin that in light of the "determinate plus"2 senlcncing provided by RCW 9.94A.507, 114months would be his minimum sentence, with his inaxiinum sentence (up to life) tobe determined by the indcterminate sentencing review board. The trial court'sjudgment also included, as a condition ofMr. ICustcr's period of coinmunity custody (which is up to life), "That you do not view or possess pornography in any form." CP at 27. Mr. Kuster appeals the pornography restriction and what he characterizes as an implicit finding of his ability to pay his LFOs. ANALYSIS The State concedcs that Mr. ICuster may challenge the condition restrictiilg his access to pornography for the first time on appeal. It also concedes that the condition is

2 "Determinate plus" is a term used by state agencies to reflect the determinate and indeterminate components of sentences imposed on nonpersistent sex offenders. WASH. STATE CASELOAD FORECAST CO~~NCIL, 20 12WASHINGTON STATE ADIJLT SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL 

## 5 3, at 24-25 (version 2012123 1).No. 30548-1-111 State 

### v.Kuster unconstitutionally vague. See Bahl, 164Wn.2d at 745. It agrees that the condition must be stricken or narrowed. We accept the State's concessions. With that, there is only one disputed issue, raised for the firsttime on appeal: whether, as Mr. Kuster argues,by orderinghim to begin making monthly payments toward his LFOs in June 2012, the trial court implicitly found, without supporting evidence, that he had the ability to pay. Whenever a person is convicted in superior court, the court may order the payment of LFOs as part ofthe sentence. RCW 9.94A.760(1). Among the financial obligations the courtmay impose are certain costs, including expenses specially incurred by the State in prosecuting the defendant. RCW 10.01.160(1),(2). By statute,the court is not authorizedto order a defendanttopay costs unless he or she is or will be able to pay them. RCW 10.01.160(3). In determining the amount and method ofpayment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources ofthe defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose. 

### Id. Two ofthe LFOs imposed by the trial court on Mr. Kuster are not discretionary costs governed by RCW 10.01.160. They are, instead, statutorily inandated financial obligations. The $500 vietiin assessment is mandated by RCW 7.68.035 and the $100 DNA collection fec is mandated by RCW 43.43.7541. Neither statuterequires the trial court to consider the offender's past, present, or future ability to pay. Monetary assessments that are mandatory may be imposed on indigent offenders at the time of sentencing without raising constitutional concern because "'[c]onstitutional principlesNo. 30548-1-111 State v.Kuster

will be implicated



### . 

## . .only if the govern~nent seeksto enforce collection ofthe assessments at a time when [the defendant is] unable, through no fault ofhis own,to comply,'" and "'[ilt is atthe point of enforced collection 

## . . 

### .,where an indigent may be faced with the alternatives ofpayment or imprisonment, that he may assert a constitutional objection on the ground ofhis indigency.'" State v. Blank, 131Wn.2d 230, 24 1, 930 P.2d 1213 (1997) (most alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Curry, 118Wn.2d 911, 917, 829P.2d 166 (1992)); andsee State v. Thompson, 153Wn. App. 325, 336-38,223 P.3d 1165 (2009) 

### (DNA fee); State v. E'illiams, 65 Wn. App. 456, 460-61, 828 P.2d 1158, 840P.2d 902 (1992) (victim penalty assessment). Theremaining $200 imposed was labeled "court costs" and the specific cost the court had in mind is not known. It may well be the $200 criminal filing fee-another mandatory fee provided 

### by RCW 36.18.020(2)(h)-but for purposes of appeal we lnay not rely on that assumption. The State responds to Mr. Kuster's challenge to this alleged implicit finding by arguing that the trial court's consideration ofhis prospects ofprison e~nploy~nent was enough to support an implicit finding, given his 114-month minimum, ultimately indeterminate sentence. The State does not address the fact that the trial court made no explicit finding of ability topay. It does not address State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24, 189P.3d 811 (2008), in which we held that Department of Corrections deductions fromNo. 30548-1-111 State v. Kuslev

inmate wages-the mechanism for payment evidently contemplated by this court-are not collection actions requiring review of ability to pay because statutory formulas for payment ensure that inmate accounts will not be reduced below indigency levels. RCW 72.11.020; RCW 72.09.1 1 l(1); former RCW 72.09.015(13) (2009). The State does not address whether, if the court did err, we should consider it for the first time on appeal. 

### RAP 2.5(a) states the general rule for appellate dispositioil of issues not raised in the trial court: appellate courts will not entertain them. State v. GuzmanNuiiez, 160Wn. App. 150, 157, 248 P.3d 103 (2011) (citing State v. Scott, 110Wn.2d 682,685,757 P.2d 492 (1988)), aff'd, 174Wn.2d 707, 285 P.3d 21 (2012). We may declineto address an issue under RAP 2.5(a) sua sponte. State v Kirkpatrick, 160Wn.2d 873, 880n. 10, 161 P.3d 990 (2007), overruled inpart on other grounds by State v.Jasper, 174Wn.2d 96, 271 P.3d 876 (2012). Given the likelihood that the $200 imposed in costs was a mandatory fee and the ampleprotection for Mr. Kuster's constitutional rights that exist if and when the State takes action to collect the LFOs. we declineto consider this assignment of error further. We remand to the trial court for the limited purpose of striking or narrowing the

accesstopornography condition to satisfy the constitutional vagueness coilcerns addresscd in Bahl, e.g.,by revising the condition to prohibit Mr. Kuster from using or

### NO.30548-1-111 State v.Kuster possessing any depictions of "sexually explicit coilduct" as defined in foriner RCW 9.68A.01 l(3) (2002). We otherwise affirin.

WE CONCUR:

i/ Kulik, J.