IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER K. WITTMAN, Appellant. No. 72811-3-1 r~3 t'V" DIVISION ONE ci CO UNPUBLISHED OPINION \ FILED: August 8, 2016 Leach, J. — Christopher Wittman appeals the trial court's imposition of a 

### mandatory $100 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fee. He argues thatthe mandatory DNA fee statute,1 as applied to an indigent defendant, violates substantive due 

### process and equalprotection. Our recentopinions in Statev. Shelton2 and State v. Lewis3 considered and rejected the same arguments. Wittman also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it required him to provide a DNA 

### sample. But the record does not show that Wittmanhas actually provided a DNA 

### sample or that the state crime laboratory database has one. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm. Background On December 18, 2013, Wittman drove his car while intoxicated and 

### speeding, causing a collision that injured several people and killed Barbara Eakin. Wittman pleaded guilty on September 17, 2014, to vehicular homicide 1 RCW 43.43.7541. 

### 2No. 72848-2-I, 2016 WL3461164, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 20, 2016). 

### 3No. 72637-4-I, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 27, 2016).No. 72811-3-1/2 

### (DUI)4, vehicular assault (DUI), and reckless endangerment. His criminal history included two earlier felony convictions. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 130 months for vehicular homicide and 20 months for vehicular 

### assault and imposed a 364-day suspended sentence on the reckless 

### endangerment conviction. It imposed a mandatory DNA collection fee and required Wittman to provide a DNA sample. Analysis Wittman claims, for the first time on appeal, that the mandatory DNAfee 

### required by RCW 43.43.7541 violates substantive due process when imposed on 

### an indigentdefendant. The State has not attempted to collect the DNAfee from Wittman and has not imposed sanctions for his failure to pay the fee. Thus, as this court recently held in Shelton, this as-applied substantive due process 

### challenge is not ripe forreview.5 Nor is imposition of the fee a manifest error 

### affecting aconstitutionalrightsubjecttoreviewunderRAP2.5(a)(3).6 Wittman also asserts that as applied to a repeat offender, the statute 

### violates equal protection. Butin Lewis, this court considered and rejected the 

### same challenge. Weheld that a rational basis exists to impose a fee for every 

### felony sentence because the feefunds both the cost ofcollection and the costs to operate andmaintaintheDNAdatabase.7
4Driving while intoxicated (DUI). 5 Shelton, WL 3461164, at *4. 6Shelton, WL 3461164, at *4. 7Lewis, slip op. at 10.No. 72811-3-1/3

Wittman also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it required him to provide a DNA sample. RCW 43.43.754(2) provides, "If the Washington state patrol crime laboratory already has a DNA sample from an individual for a qualifying offense, a subsequent submission is not required to be submitted." Wittman cites only his criminal history described in the record to support his claim that he already submitted a DNA sample. But the record does not show that Wittman actually submitted a DNA sample or that the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory has a DNAsample for a qualifying offense. Withoutthis 

### showing, hisargumentfails.8 Conclusion Under Shelton and Lewis, Wittman's arguments fail. We affirm. 

# i/g^U^-\
WE CONCUR: 

## m,

8Lewis, slip op. at 10-11.