IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

LEON CARIL, II,

Appellant.

No. 85252-3-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HAZELRIGG, A.C.J. — Leon Caril appeals from his resentencing after remand 

from this court. He asserts that his remote appearance at the hearing violated due 

process and specifically that he was denied the right to be present and to 

confidentially confer with counsel. He further challenges the factual basis for the 

calculation of his offender score and the court’s imposition of the victim penalty 

assessment (VPA) and interest on restitution in light of the court’s finding of 

indigency. With the exception of the VPA, Caril fails to demonstrate error. We 

affirm the sentence, but remand for the trial court to strike the VPA.

FACTS

The State charged Caril with murder in the second degree—intentional 

murder—with an allegation that he committed the crime with a deadly weapon

based on the stabbing death of Andrew Pimenthal in June 2017. The State filed 

an amended information roughly a year and a half later that added a separate 

charge of murder in the first degree—premeditation—also with a deadly weapon 
No. 85252-3-I/2

- 2 -

enhancement (Count 1) and changed the murder in the second degree charge 

from intentional to felony murder, maintaining the deadly weapon enhancement 

(Count 2).

1 Caril has a history of mental illness and was diagnosed with paranoid

schizophrenia in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. During the pretrial phase of 

the case, the superior court found Caril was not competent to stand trial and 

committed him to Western State Hospital for a 90-day restoration period. After 

restoration, the superior court deemed Caril competent to proceed to trial and a 

jury eventually convicted him of the lesser included crime of murder in the second 

degree—intentional murder on Count 1 and as charged on Count 2 of murder in 

the second degree—felony murder. The jury also found by special verdicts that 

both crimes were committed with a deadly weapon for purposes of sentencing 

enhancement. The trial court vacated Count 2 on double jeopardy grounds for 

purposes of sentencing. Based on his criminal history, which included prior 

convictions for most serious or “strike” offenses, the court found that Caril was a 

persistent offender and sentenced him to a mandatory term of life in prison without 

the possibility of parole. Caril timely appealed and this court affirmed his 

conviction, but remanded for a de novo resentencing due to changes in the law.

On March 20, 2023, in preparation for resentencing, Caril’s trial counsel 

informed the court and prosecutor via e-mail that Caril wished to participate in the 

hearing through Zoom.2 Later in that same e-mail thread, Caril’s counsel and the 

court bailiff discussed the necessary accommodations for a remote appearance, 

 1 Additional facts are set out in the opinion from Caril’s first direct appeal, State v. Caril, 23 

Wn. App. 2d 416, 515 P.3d 1036 (2022), review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1025, cert. denied sub nom. 

Caril v. Washington, 144 S. Ct. 125 (2023).

2 Zoom is an internet-based videoconferencing platform.
No. 85252-3-I/3

- 3 -

including fingerprinting procedures for the judgment and sentence (J&S).3 The 

next day, Caril’s counsel also contacted the Department of Corrections (DOC) and 

submitted a request for a virtual hearing.

During this time, from March 17 to April 5, Caril sent seven letters to the trial 

court and prosecutor. In these letters, Caril expressed dissatisfaction with his 

counsel, stating his attorney was not negotiating sentencing strategies with him or 

complying with amendments to applicable law. While Caril’s letters presented a 

number of his beliefs about the status of his conviction and incarceration, he never 

expressed a wish to appear in person at his resentencing hearing or made any 

statements in these letters that contradicted his attorney’s assertion to the court 

and prosecutor about his request to appear remotely at the hearing. When Caril 

appeared via Zoom for resentencing, the judge did not advise him of any 

procedures for privately conferring with counsel during the hearing, but did invite 

Caril to address the court. While the camera angle in the courtroom initially 

prevented Caril from seeing the prosecutor during her opening statement, when 

the judge noticed this on the screen, the camera was adjusted; this temporary 

minor technical issue did not impact Caril’s ability to participate at his resentencing 

hearing. He did not ask for the opportunity to speak privately with his counsel or 

express any concerns about his ability to do so. Instead, he spoke at length about 

issues that, while very important to him, were ultimately unrelated to the 

resentencing. The court explicitly corrected Caril’s mistaken belief that his juvenile 

convictions were included in his offender score.

 3 The prosecutor was also included in the entirety of this e-mail communication, but did not 

participate in the discussion about the logistics of Caril’s remote appearance.
No. 85252-3-I/4

- 4 -

The State recommended a sentence at the high end of Caril’s sentencing 

range. Caril’s attorney sought an exceptional sentence below the standard range 

based on his contention that his mental health crisis at the time of murder affected 

his conduct and having presented a failed mental health defense at trial. Counsel 

further argued that the court should impose a low end sentence if it rejected his 

request for an exceptional downward departure. The trial court rejected both 

defense requests and sentenced Caril to a total term of 384 months in prison; a 

standard range sentence of 360 months for Count 1 followed by a consecutive 

term of 24 months for the deadly weapon enhancement and 36 months of 

community custody supervision upon release from prison. The court found Caril 

was indigent, but nonetheless imposed the $500 VPA and ordered him to pay 

interest on the restitution award.

Caril was given another opportunity to address the trial court after the 

sentence was pronounced and did so, but again did not request an opportunity to 

confer with counsel and only spoke about juvenile convictions that were not part 

of his offender score calculation.

Caril timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

Caril presents a number of challenges to his resentencing, asserting 

violations of his constitutional rights, that the trial court failed to hold the State to 

its burden to prove his criminal history for purposes of calculating his offender 

score, and the improper imposition of certain legal financial obligations despite the 

court’s finding of indigency. Caril also thrice submitted a pro se statement of 
No. 85252-3-I/5

- 5 -

additional grounds for review, presenting a wide variety of issues for our 

consideration.

I. Challenges To Remote Appearance at Resentencing Hearing

Caril raises several constitutional challenges to the manner by which the 

trial court conducted his resentencing hearing and seeks remand for yet another 

resentencing. However, he fails to demonstrate reversible error.

A. Right to Be Present

As a starting point, the record before us clearly establishes that Caril’s trial 

counsel explicitly advised the court of his client’s request to appear remotely at the 

resentencing and coordinated with the court to make the necessary arrangements. 

Further, Caril did not object during the resentencing hearing to his remote 

appearance, nor did he indicate a desire to be present in the courtroom. There is 

not any allegation before us that this claim by trial counsel, as conveyed in the email, was inaccurate or later withdrawn by Caril, and there is no assertion of 

ineffective assistance of counsel based on this communication by counsel on 

Caril’s behalf. Caril further notes that he was not copied on the e-mail chain that 

his counsel initiated with the court and DOC and only now says he did not consent 

to his remote appearance at the hearing.

Criminal defendants have “a constitutional right to be present at sentencing, 

including resentencing.” State v. Rupe, 108 Wn.2d 734, 743, 743 P.2d 210 (1987). 

However, this right can be waived expressly or by the failure to object and trial 

courts are “not required to probe into the issue of whether the defendant is 
No. 85252-3-I/6

- 6 -

voluntarily waiving the right to presence if no objection is made.” State v. 

Anderson, 19 Wn. App. 2d 556, 561, 497 P.3d 880 (2021), review denied, 199 

Wn.2d 1004 (2022). 

Here, not only did Caril not object to appearing remotely at resentencing,

but he explicitly requested a remote hearing through his counsel. Caril now asserts

for the first time, in his reply brief, that there was a breakdown in communication 

between him and his attorney. However, to the extent he asserts that he was 

deprived of counsel by the court’s failure to inquire into a possible breakdown in 

communication between Caril and his public defender, we do not consider 

arguments raised for the first time in reply. See Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. 

Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).

Caril also contends that he did not know that he was waiving his right to an 

in-person hearing, which expressly contradicts the assertion of his attorney. Caril

did mail several letters to the court and prosecutor wherein he expressed 

dissatisfaction with his counsel, stating his attorney was “not negotiating any court 

strategies with [him]” and “will not simply agree with legal reformed law already 

passed.” Among the concerns Caril raised were his belief that he was due to be 

released from prison soon, claims of a double jeopardy violation, and other matters 

unrelated to the resentencing hearing. However, none of Caril’s letters contained 

a request to appear in person at his resentencing hearing.

Caril fails to demonstrate that his counsel did not have authority to speak 

on his behalf when he communicated Caril’s request to appear by Zoom for the 

resentencing hearing to the court and prosecutor. Caril’s letters only establish that 
No. 85252-3-I/7

- 7 -

he was concerned with the fact that his counsel could not “simply agree” with 

information regarding the “legal reformed law” or that his attorney refused to 

believe that he had already signed release papers in DOC. Furthermore, he did 

not ask for the opportunity to confer with his counsel, nor did he express any 

concerns about his ability to speak with his counsel privately. Instead, when he 

addressed the court, spoke at length about his juvenile convictions, his concerns 

about a violation of double jeopardy, his experience in prison, and his readiness 

for release. The court interrupted Caril once during his allocution to assure him 

that his juvenile convictions did not play a role in determining his offender score 

for resentencing.

Division Three of this court recently addressed a similar challenge in 

Anderson. Anderson averred that both his rights to be present and to counsel were 

violated when he appeared for resentencing by video from prison. Anderson, 19 

Wn. App. 2d at 561. However, on review, this court expressly noted that not all 

constitutional errors are subject to the manifest constitutional error standard that 

allows a defendant to present the issue for the first time on appeal and concluded 

that Anderson failed to preserve the error because he did not object in the trial 

court. Id. at 561-62. While we agree that sentencing is a critical stage of 

proceedings and the defendant has a right to be present, we disagree that, as Caril 

suggests in briefing, established law requires a particular colloquy or written waiver 

if the defendant wishes to appear remotely.4 Caril’s express request to appear 

 4 Caril appears to conflate CrR 3.4(a), which permits a defendant’s appearance through 

counsel only upon written waiver or by oral or written affirmation on the record of that desire, with 

CrR 3.4(e)(2) that expressly allows remote appearance by the defendant “by agreement of the 

parties, either in writing or on the record, and upon approval of the trial court judge pursuant to local 
No. 85252-3-I/8

- 8 -

remotely at his resentencing hearing waived any challenge based on his right to 

appear in person.

Woven throughout Caril’s argument on this issue is an additional claim that 

his inability to confer with counsel effectively during the hearing deprived him of 

counsel. He argues this was structural error that is not subject to harmless error 

analysis. However, Anderson is instructive on this question as well. As a 

preliminary matter, the court in Anderson reached this assignment of error after 

concluding that Anderson had demonstrated that it was manifest constitutional 

error under RAP 2.5. Id. at 563-64. This necessarily means that Anderson 

established that the error was manifest; he was prejudiced by it. Division Three 

then proceeded to harmless error analysis, expressly undercutting Caril’s 

assertion that such an error is structural. Id. at 564; see also State v. Schlenker, 

No. 39499-9-III, slip op. at 30-31, (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2024), 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/394999_%20ord.pdf. In Anderson, the 

court determined that the State had carried its burden to prove that the violation of 

Anderson’s right to counsel based on his inability to confer with his attorney was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the trial court granted Anderson’s 

sentencing requests. 19 Wn. App. 2d at 564.

Here, Caril presented questions about inclusion of his juvenile points, 

double jeopardy, prison placement, and a number of other matters either already 

 court rule.” Here, Caril’s attorney did not appear on his behalf under CrR 3.4(a), but rather counsel 

appeared in person while Caril appeared remotely pursuant to CrR 3.4(e)(2) and the latter rule 

does not require a written waiver from the defendant. Caril offers no authority that his trial counsel’s 

assertion of his request via e-mail, and subsequent communication between the parties and court 

about the logistics, was not a written agreement of the parties under CrR 3.4(e)(2).
No. 85252-3-I/9

- 9 -

addressed or not properly before the trial court. Defense counsel argued for an 

exceptional sentence below the standard range based on Caril’s documented 

history of significant mental health diagnoses and the failed diminished capacity 

defense presented at trial. The court had either already addressed the issues Caril 

wanted it to consider, particularly as to his offender score and concerns about a 

double jeopardy violation, or was without the authority to provide relief, as was the 

case with his assertion that he had already signed release paperwork at DOC. 

While the court did not impose a sentence below the standard range, it did not 

include his juvenile convictions in calculating Caril’s offender score, nor was he 

punished twice for the same criminal act in violation of the constitutional prohibition 

on double jeopardy. Like Anderson, Caril does not show what other relief the trial 

court may have granted if he had been able to privately confer with counsel at 

sentencing. As such, any error in failing to expressly provide for procedures for 

such confidential communication was harmless.5 Caril has failed to carry his 

burden on this challenge.

B. Right to Appear for Proceedings Free from Restraints

Next, Caril relies on State v. Luthi6 to assert that conducting a resentencing 

hearing while he appeared remotely from prison constituted an unnecessary 

restraint that violated due process. According to Caril, videoconferencing from 

 5 We take this opportunity to reiterate to trial courts that CrR 3.4(e)(3) establishes the 

standards for video appearances for hearings, which include the ability of a defendant to privately 

confer with counsel. Best practices for judges conducting hearings where the defendant appears 

remotely includes expressly setting out those procedures on the record and confirming 

understanding by the parties.

6 State v. Luthi, 3 Wn.3d 249, 549 P.3d 712 (2024).
No. 85252-3-I/10

- 10 -

prison was “the same as appearing before the court with unjustified restraints.” We 

disagree.

“A defendant’s right to appear in court free from unjustified restraints is well 

established as a matter of federal and state due process law.” State v. Luthi, 3

Wn.3d 249, 256, 549 P.3d 712 (2024); see also Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622,

626, 125 S. Ct. 2007, 161 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2005); State v. Jackson, 195 Wn.2d 841, 

852, 467 P.3d 97 (2020). This right, however, can be limited if “‘some impelling 

necessity demands the restraint.’” State v. Lundstrom, 6 Wn. App. 2d 388, 393, 

429 P.3d 1116 (2018) (quoting State v. Williams, 18 Wash. 47, 51, 50 P. 580 

(1897); see also State v. Damon, 144 Wn.2d 686, 690-91, 25 P.3d 418 (2001).

Thus, before restraining a defendant, “[a] trial court must engage in an 

individualized inquiry into the use of restraints prior to every court appearance” and

determine whether the restraints are necessary. Jackson, 195 Wn.2d at 854; see 

also State v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383, 400, 635 P.2d 694 (1981).

Luthi involved a defendant who appeared in court for a probation violation 

hearing while inside a cage-like holding cell within the jail courtroom in Cowlitz 

County. 3 Wn.3d at 251. In that case, Luthi’s appearance for her hearing from 

within the secure cell was visible to the judge, the attorneys, and all courtroom 

observers, and it was precisely that visibility that eroded her constitutionally 

protected presumption of innocence. 3 Wn.3d at 264. Unlike the facts of Luthi, 

Caril appeared via Zoom from prison at his own request as conveyed to the court 

by his counsel. On the contrary, the record here reflects that Caril was waving his 

hand during the hearing in order to draw the attention of the judge, which at least 
No. 85252-3-I/11

- 11 -

suggests that his hands were not restrained. Caril does not provide any citations 

to the record to establish that he was shackled, caged, or otherwise physically

restrained during his resentencing hearing beyond the fact that he was 

incarcerated. The extreme circumstances of Luthi are distinct from those of Caril’s 

resentencing hearing and we have recently refused other attempts to conflate 

physical restraint with video appearances in court.

In a recent unpublished opinion of this court, State v. Martin,

7 the defendant 

similarly argued that remote appearance from prison for resentencing constituted 

impermissible shackling and relied on our Supreme Court’s opinion in Jackson. In 

rejecting Martin’s contention, we stated the following:

The court’s analysis in Jackson began with a review of the 

historical restrictions on shackling incarcerated individuals with irons, 

chains, manacles, and bonds. [195 Wn.2d] at 850-51. Prior to 1722, 

when prisoners were arraigned or entering a plea, they were not 

shackled “‘unless there was evident danger of [their] escape,’” and 

by the late 1800s, our Supreme Court expressly held that shackling 

defendants was prohibited without an individualized determination of 

its necessity. Id. at 851 (quoting Williams, 18 Wash. at 49). Despite 

this, our Supreme Court noted, the practice of systematically 

restraining all incarcerated defendants had continued in certain trial 

courts in our state. Id. Looking beyond the problems of shackling 

within the courtroom, the court then painted a vivid picture of the role 

that shackling has played in the history of our country as a “means 

of control and oppression”:

Shackles and restraints remain an image of the 

transatlantic slave trade and the systematic abuse and 

ownership of African persons that has endured long 

beyond the end of slavery. Shackles and restraints also 

represent the forced removal of Native people from 

their homelands through the Trail of Tears and the 

slave labor of Native people. We recognize that 

although these atrocities occurred over a century ago, 

 7 No. 84175-1-I, slip op. (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2023) (unpublished), 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/841751.pdf. We cite this case pursuant to GR 14.1(c) as 

necessary for a reasoned opinion.
No. 85252-3-I/12

- 12 -

the systemic control of persons of color remains in 

society, particularly within the criminal justice system.

Id.

We are unmoved by the attempt here to conflate the uniquely 

complex history of shackling with technological advances which 

allow incarcerated people to attend court proceedings without having 

to endure the physical and logistical hardships of the often byzantine 

process of prison transport. The analysis in Jackson was clearly 

rooted in the imagery and impact of restraints, bindings, and irons, 

which were complicated by a history of violent colonial practices.

Martin does not even attempt to demonstrate which, if any, of these 

concerns are present here to trigger the application of Jackson as 

controlling authority. The record does not establish that Martin was 

bound, chained, handcuffed, or braced. He video conferenced into 

the court proceedings from prison.

Martin, slip op. at 16-17 (one alteration in original). We adopt the reasoning 

articulated in Martin as we remain unmoved by this attempt to apply the case law 

regarding physical restraint to circumstances where the defendant requested 

remote appearance by video. Caril has failed to carry his burden of establishing a

due process violation on this basis.

II. Proof of Prior Convictions for Calculation of Offender Score

The court determined that Caril’s sentencing range was 298-397 months based 

on its calculation of his offender score as 10. After hearing from both the State and 

defense, it imposed a standard range sentence of 360 months in prison, followed by a 

mandatory consecutive term of 24 months in prison based on the deadly weapon 

enhancement, for a total term of 384 months of incarceration. Caril argues that the

court erred by failing to reexamine the State’s proof of his offender score. He requests 

a new sentencing hearing and claims that the sentencing court failed to hold the State 

to its burden of proving Caril’s criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence and 

did not review any documents proving the alleged criminal history. We disagree.
No. 85252-3-I/13

- 13 -

The State indeed bears the burden of proving a defendant’s criminal history by 

a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 9.94A.500(1). At the original sentencing 

hearing on January 29, 2021, the court made an explicit finding that the State had met 

its burden to prove Caril’s prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence. The

court stated:

Okay. So based on the preponderance of evidence standard 

which is—I would apply at this stage of the proceedings, I am going to 

find that the State has established by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the Exhibit No. 2, the known print card that was taken on November 

20th, is the same person as the prints that are contained in Exhibits 4, 5, 

and 7. And again, that those match up, it is the same person, and again 

that’s pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard.

The trial court reached this conclusion after the State presented certified copies of 

Caril’s prior J&Ss. The State also provided fingerprint comparison evidence and 

testimony, both of which, the court found, linked those convictions to Caril. Additionally, 

Caril’s counsel expressly stated that he did not object to admission of certified copies of 

Caril’s prior convictions as exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7 as shown in the trial transcript:

[State]: Four is a judgment and sentence, 97-C-08696-1.

The Court: Is that 4?

[State]: That’s No. 4. I think I’ll just list them and then I’ll offer them later 

because I think [defense counsel] is going to object to all of them. No. 5 

is a certified judgment and sentence, 98-1-00166-1, Snohomish County.

No. 6 is a certified docket from Everett Municipal Court, CR-0049895.

And Exhibit 7 is a certified judgment and sentence, 02-1-0501504, 

Seattle.

[Defense counsel]: Did [c]ounsel say all of them were certified?

[State]: Yes.

[Defense counsel]: I have no objection if they’re certified documents.

The Court: Okay. So as far as 4, 5, 6, and 7 are concerned, those are admitted, 

there is no objection.
No. 85252-3-I/14

- 14 -

Citing State v. Hunley, Caril obfuscates the issue by claiming that the court 

violated his right to due process by resting the sentence after remand on the State’s 

bare assertions about his criminal history. 175 Wn.2d 901, 915, 287 P.3d 584 (2012). 

He properly asserts the State is not relieved of its burden to prove prior convictions 

unless he “affirmatively acknowledged” the “facts and information” underlying his

criminal history. Id. at 912-13. However, Caril’s challenge on this issue is premised on

his claims that the court did not calculate his offender score at the original sentencing 

hearing when it found he was subject to the persistent offender accountability act and 

that it did not reexamine the validity of the previously admitted exhibits or require the 

State to produce evidence of his criminal history again at resentencing.

The record clearly establishes, though, that both the accuracy and sufficiency of 

the State’s proof of Caril’s criminal history was fully litigated during his original 

sentencing before the same judge with the same defense attorney. Moreover, while 

Caril’s attorney did not object to the admission of certified copies of Caril’s previous 

J&Ss, prior to the State’s presentation of evidence of their foundation, defense counsel

did object to the admission of certain fingerprint cards that the State ultimately used to 

connect the documentation of those convictions to Caril. In fact, the State presented 

live testimony from an identification technician employed by the Seattle Police 

Department for that purpose and Caril’s attorney raised a number of objections during 

her direct examination by the State. He further engaged in extensive cross-examination 

of the State’s witness and presented substantive argument that the State had not 

carried its burden to prove Caril’s criminal history. Any claim now presented on appeal 

that Caril’s history was not fully litigated in this case or that the State was not held to its 
No. 85252-3-I/15

- 15 -

burden to prove that history by a preponderance of the evidence is belied by the record. 

Caril provides no authority to support his assertion that the trial court was required to 

re-examine and re-calculate his offender score at resentencing after comprehensive relitigation and renewed fact-finding.

Caril further asserts that the court was obligated to determine whether his 

juvenile convictions affected his offender score. Caril contends a third resentencing is 

required because the court’s failure to conduct this specific inquiry left him without the 

necessary assurances that invalid convictions, or convictions that should not be scored, 

did not impact his sentence. This challenge, however, is futile. Caril’s juvenile 

convictions were neither included nor referenced in calculating his offender score at his 

resentencing as demonstrated by appendix B to his J&S which includes only 

convictions for adult felonies:
No. 85252-3-I/16

- 16 -

III. Finding of Indigency and Legal Financial Obligations

In light of the trial court’s finding of indigency, Caril challenges the imposition 

of certain legal financial obligations (LFOs).

A. VPA

The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1169, which 

amended the VPA statute effective July 1, 2023. See State v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 

2d 1, 16, 530 P.3d 1048 (2023) (citing LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449). The statute now 

prohibits courts from imposing costs on defendants found to be “indigent” as 

defined by RCW 10.01.160(3), and requires the trial court to waive any costs

imposed before the effective date, on the defendant’s motion, if the defendant is 

unable to pay. RCW 7.68.035(4), (5)(b). Although the amendments took effect

after Caril’s resentencing hearing, they apply prospectively to cases that are on 

direct review. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 16.

The parties agree that Caril is indigent but the State argues that the VPA is 

not a “cost” within the meaning of RCW 10.01.160(3). The State is incorrect. We 

remand for the trial court to strike the VPA from Caril’s J&S.

B. Interest on Restitution 

Caril also asserts that the trial court erred when it imposed interest on 

restitution, given both his indigency and history of mental health diagnoses. The 

recent revisions to RCW 10.82.090(2) eliminate the mandatory imposition of

interest on restitution. LAWS OF 2022, ch. 260, § 12. The sentencing court now 

has the discretion to waive interest based on factors such as indigency, mental 
No. 85252-3-I/17

- 17 -

illness, and homelessness. Id. The court may also consider any other relevant

information that may influence the decision to not impose interest on restitution in 

the interest of justice. Id.

The State asserts that Caril’s contention is based on misreading of the 

procedural history of the case with respect to the effective date of the amendment. 

We agree. Restitution interest was imposed on Caril in the J&S entered on April 

7, 2023 and the amendment to RCW 10.82.090 took effect on January 1, 2023. 

The State contends that Caril’s failure to object when the court did not appear to 

apply the statutory amendments and consider the factors for the imposition of 

interest on restitution, waived the issue for purposes of appeal. Our Supreme 

Court clearly stated in State v. Blazina that unpreserved challenges to 

discretionary LFOs are not reviewable as a matter of right under case law. 182 

Wn.2d 827, 833-34, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). The amendment to the statute at issue 

expressly made interest on restitution discretionary. Because Caril failed to object 

to the court’s imposition of interest on restitution, despite its express finding of 

indigency, this challenge is waived.

IV. Statement of Additional Grounds for Review

A defendant may provide a pro se statement of additional grounds (SAG) 

for review. RAP 10.10(a). However, there are practical limitations to our review 

of a SAG. For example, “an appellate court will not consider an argument made 

in a [SAG] if it does not inform the court of the nature and occurrence of the alleged 

errors.” State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008). “Although 

reference to the record and citation to authorities are not necessary or required, 
No. 85252-3-I/18

- 18 -

the appellate court will not consider an appellant’s SAG if it does not inform the 

court of the nature and occurrence of alleged errors.” State v. Gauthier, 189 Wn. 

App. 30, 43-44, 354 P.3d 900 (2015). “[I]ssues that involve facts or evidence not 

in the record are properly raised through a personal restraint petition, not a 

statement of additional grounds.” Calvin, 176 Wn. App. at 26. However, issues 

addressed on direct appeal may not be renewed in a personal restraint petition, 

unless certain specific requirements are met. See RAP 16.4(d); In re Pers.

Restraint of Haverty, 101 Wn.2d 498, 501-04, 681 P.2d 835 (1984).

Caril submitted his SAG three times, with each submission containing slight 

differences. He raised a total of 27 additional grounds, spanning from alleged

miscalculation of his offender score and earned release date to requests for money 

damages and challenges to prior arrests on other cases, with several duplicate or 

overlapping requests for relief. We endeavor to address the claims as we 

understand them.

A. Calculation of Offender Score

Caril challenges the inclusion of his juvenile conviction and alleges 

miscalculation of his offender score in SAG issues 12, 22, and 24. While Caril 

clearly disagrees with the trial court’s calculation of his offender score, he has not 

shown a sufficient basis to question its accuracy. He is not entitled to relief on 

these issues.
No. 85252-3-I/19

- 19 -

B. Matters Outside Scope of Appeal

Caril raises a number of issues that are outside of the scope of the present 

appeal. In SAG issues 13, 17, 19, and 21, he expressly requests investigation of 

his juvenile arrests and convictions. Such matters are clearly beyond our limited 

review of the resentencing hearing in this case. As a preliminary matter, the only 

case before us on direct appeal is King County Superior Court No. 17-1-04489-6

SEA. Further, appellate courts “cannot reweigh the evidence on review.” State v. 

Ramos, 187 Wn.2d 420, 453, 387 P.3d 650 (2017). It is worth reiterating here that 

Caril’s juvenile convictions were not considered in the calculation of his offender 

score in this case.

Caril separately challenges the imposition of LFOs in those juvenile cases 

in SAG issue 13, asserting that he has paid thousands of dollars in interest, over 

and above the fines themselves, from 1996 to 2023. Again, those cases are not 

properly before this court. To the extent that this SAG issue is a request to remit 

any remaining LFOs in those cases, that procedure is addressed in part G below.

C. Issues Already Addressed in Previous Direct Appeal

In SAG issue 5, Caril challenges the evidence underlying his conviction. 

However, his conviction was affirmed in his previous appeal; the only aspect of the 

case that was reversed was the sentence. State v. Caril, 23 Wn. App. 2d 416, 

436, 515 P.3d 1036, 1046 (2022), review denied, 200 Wn.2d 1025, cert. denied

sub nom. Caril v. Washington, 144 S. Ct. 125 (2023). Again, the only matter before 

this court is the resentencing hearing. We do not consider renewed challenges to 

the conviction that were addressed in a prior appeal. See State v. Clark, 143 
No. 85252-3-I/20

- 20 -

Wn.2d 731, 745, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001) (“‘Where there has been a determination of 

the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine ordinarily 

precludes redeciding the same legal issues in a subsequent appeal.’” (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 

263, 759 P.2d 1196 (1988))).

D. Sentencing Requests

Caril additionally makes several requests that appear to relate to the terms 

of the sentence that was imposed. In SAG issue 3, he requests assignment to a

work camp; in SAG issue 8, he seeks to substitute a portion of his prison time with

community custody; in SAG issue 9, he requests placement in a work release 

program; in SAG issue 11, he requests placement in a mental health facility; and

in SAG issue 25, he asks for an extension of his term of community custody 

supervision. As an appellate court, we are tasked with analyzing the legal propriety 

of Caril’s resentencing; we do not have the authority to direct a sentencing court 

to authorize alternatives to confinement like those sought here. 

E. Requests for Other Remedies Not Available from This Court

Caril also seeks other forms of relief that are not available on appeal. In 

SAG issues 2, 7, 14, 20, and 26 he seeks immediate release from prison and 

money damages for false imprisonment based on a number of claimed 

irregularities from the purported inclusion of his juvenile convictions in the 

calculation of his offender score to false imprisonment and scrivener’s errors.

Absent circumstances not present here, this court will not direct immediate release 
No. 85252-3-I/21

- 21 -

from custody. See, e.g., RAP 16.15(b); In re Pers. Restraint of Pauley, 13 Wn. 

App. 2d 292, 309, 466 P.3d 245, 254 (2020); Ruling Granting Rev., In re Pers. 

Restraint of Williams, No. 99344-1, at 4-5 (Wash. Feb. 3, 2021). In SAG issue 27, 

he requests assistance in filing a suit for damages against prior trial and appellate 

counsel. There no right to counsel for purposes of filing a claim for money 

damages against counsel or others as a result of a criminal conviction. “‘[T]he 

Sixth Amendment right to counsel, while fundamental, is not a right without 

limitation.’” State v. Afeworki, 189 Wn. App. 327, 330, 358 P.3d 1186 (2015)

(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bailey v. 

Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 794, 803, 568 S.E.2d 440 (2002)). In SAG issue 6, 

he further requests that this state court order his transfer to a federal prison. Apart 

from the inconsistency between this request and the one for immediate release, 

the doctrine of separation of powers limits the authority of this court with regard to 

conditions of incarceration, such as placement in particular facilities or programs,

and Caril cites no authority that would allow a state appellate court to direct a 

federal prison to accept a person serving a sentence for a violation of state law. 

Caril also argues in SAG issue 16 that counsel failed to monitor his LFOs, but he 

offers no authority that appointed counsel must track payment or collection efforts 

on LFOs after their representation has concluded or on cases where they were not 

appointed.

In SAG issue 1, Caril claims that his earned release date was miscalculated, 

while in SAG issues 15 and 18, he seeks placement in mental health housing and 

an evaluation for housing and placement purposes. Additionally, in SAG issue 23, 
No. 85252-3-I/22

- 22 -

Caril requests consideration for work programs. These appear to be inquiries 

better directed at DOC as they pertain to internal prison procedures or 

determinations regarding housing or access to programs. Decisions by DOC 

regarding access to resources like health care or programs may be reviewed by 

personal restraint petition. See In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 198 Wn.2d 342, 

496 P.3d 289 (2021); RAP 16.4.

F. Unsupported or Unclear Claims

Caril additionally raises several issues that are either unclear, beyond the 

scope of relief we can provide, or both. In SAG issue 4, Caril claims tribal 

membership and appears to assert that he is entitled to “sovereign immunity” as a 

result. Because this claim is not supported by credible evidence in the record, we 

cannot review it. See RAP 10.10(c) (appellate court will not consider argument 

made in a SAG if it does not inform court of nature and occurrence of alleged 

errors). Additionally, in SAG issue 10, he argues that the interstate compact for 

adult offender supervision (ICAOS)8 applies to him. However, ICAOS addresses 

terms of supervision after release from prison, so it is unclear how this would apply 

given Caril’s current custodial status. As presented, these issues are 

impermissibly vague and do not provide a valid basis for the relief he seeks. 

Accordingly, we decline to analyze them further.

 8 RCW 9.94A.745 
No. 85252-3-I/23

- 23 -

G. Motion to Remit LFOs

Caril includes in his SAG a motion to remit certain LFOs. However, the 

plain language of the statute that authorizes such a motion directs that it be made 

in the trial court. RCW 10.01.160(4) states that a “defendant who has been ordered 

to pay costs and who has not willfully failed to pay the obligation . . . may at any time 

petition the sentencing court for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid 

portion thereof.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, motions to remit LFOs on any of 

Caril’s past convictions should be made in the corresponding sentencing court. 

We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for the trial court to strike the 

VPA.

WE CONCUR: