### FILED MAY 28, 2015 In the Office ofthe ClerkofCourt W A State CourtofAppeals, Division III INTHECOURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 32112-6-III ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) JOHN T. HAMRE, ) ) Appellant. ) LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - Ajury found John Hamre guilty ofattemptingto elude
a police vehicle. On appeal, he raises an issue he did notpreservebelow. He argues that thetrial court improperly imposedlegal financial obligations (LFOs) onhim without first inquiringinto his ability to pay. 

### State v. 

### Blazina, Wn.2d_,344 P.3d 680 (2015) confirms an appellate court's discretion onwhetherto allowthe argumentto beraised for the first time onreview. Becausethe discretionary LFOs here are less than $750, we exercise ourdiscretion against reviewingthe waived error.No. 32112-6-III State 

### v. Hamre
FACTS Mr. Hamre was charged and convictedby ajury ofattemptingto elude a police vehicle. The sentencing court imposed discretionary costs of$198 and mandatory costs of$700, for a total LFO of$898. The court orderedMr. Hamre to pay $25 permonth commencing September 15,2014. Thejudgment and sentence contained,the following boilerplate language: 2.5 Legal Financial Obligations/Restitution [RCW 9.94A.760]. The courthas considered the total amount owing, the defendant'spresent and future ability to pay legal financial obligations, including the defendant's financial resources and the likelihood that the defendant's status will change. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 25. However, the record reveals no actual inquiry by the sentencing court concerning Mr. Hamre'spresent or future ability to pay the LFOs. Nor does the record reveal any objectionby Mr. Hamre concerning imposition ofthe LFOs. 

### Mr. Hamre nevertheless appeals. ANALYSIS Mr. Hamre challenges the trial court's imposition ofLFOs and scheduledpayment. He contends that the trial court failed to take into accounthis present or future ability to pay, as required by RCW 10.01.160.

2No. 32112-6-III 

### State v. 

### Hamre
In 

### State v. 

### Duncan, 180 Wn. App. 245, 253, 327 P.3d 699 (20

### 14),petitionjor reviewfiled, No. 90188-1 (Wash. Apr. 30,2014), we observed that whether a defendant will be unable to pay LFOs imposed at sentencing is not an issue that defendants overlook, 

### itis one they reasonably waive. Further, we concluded that henceforth we would decline to address a challenge to consider that issue ifraised for the first time on appeaL Id. (citing RAP 2.5(a)). Ourposition was consistent with that ofthe other divisions ofour court. 

### See State v. 

### Blazina, 174 Wn. App. 906, 911,301 P.3d 492 (2013), 

### remanded, 344 P.3d 680 (2015); 

### State v. 

### Calvin, 316 P.3d 496, 

### 507,petitionjor review filed, No. 89518-0 (Wash. Nov. 12,2013). We consistently held, until our Supreme Court decided otherwise, that this was the rule we would follow. In 

### Blazina, the Supreme Courtheld that RAP 2.5(a) provides appellate courts with discretion whethertoreview a defendant's LFO challenge raised for the first time on appeal. 

### Blazina, 344 P.3d at 683. There, the 

### Blazina court exercised its discretion in favor ofallowing the LFO challenge. 

### Id. In doing so, the 

### Blazina court chronicled the myriad ofproblems associated with LFOs imposed against indigent defendants. Id. at 683-85Here, Mr. Hamre failed to objectto the trial court's imposition ofLFOs. We, therefore, have discretion to rely on our analysis in 

### Duncan and not review the claimed
3No. 32ll2-6-III State 

### v. Hamre

error. In determining whether to review the newly raised error, we weigh the administrative burden and expense ofbringing Mr. Hamre to a new sentencing hearing against the likelihood that the LFO result would change. An important variable in this analysis is the dollar amount ofdiscretionary LFOs imposedby the sentencing court. It is important to agree on a uniform standard to assist appellate counsel in advising their clients whetherto raise the LFO issue for the first time on appeal. We note that ifwe declare that the issue was waived below, the defendant will be burdened with extra costs as the nonprevailing party. Toward announcing a uniform standard, we suggest that when discretionary LFOs are less than $750, we should be reluctant to decide the newly raised issue. Here, Mr. Hamre's discretionary LFOs are only $198. We, therefore, exercise our discretion and decide not to review this waived issue for the first time on appeal. In so holding, we do not countenance a sentencing court's failure to make the inquiry on the record necessitated by RCW 10.01.160. Rather, we reason that the administrative burden and expense ofbringing Mr. Hamre back to court for a newhearing outweighs the likelihood that the relatively small discretionary costs imposed will bereduced.

4No. 32112-6-111 

### State v. 

### Hamre
Affinn. A majority ofthe panel has detennined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but itwill be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

Brown, A.C.J. Lawrence-Berrey, 1.

5