FILED 

NOVEMBER 29, 2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

Respondent, 

v. 

JAMES EDWARD BOYD, 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 33707-3-111 

( consolidated with 

No. 33708-1-111 

No. 33709-0-111 

No. 33730-8-111) 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

PENNELL, J. -James Boyd appeals from the superior court's order denying his 

motion under RCW 10.01.160(4) to terminate or modify legal financial obligations 

(LFOs) imposed as part of the judgment and sentence in four separate criminal 

convictions. We dismiss his appeal as moot. 

FACTS 

Mr. Boyd has four long-standing felony convictions that have resulted in an array 

of LFOs. On numerous occasions, the superior court has found Mr. Boyd in violation of 

his LFO orders. By October 2014, Mr. Boyd's total LFO balance was $19,617.00. At 

that time, the court collection deputy reviewed Mr. Boyd's payments and alleged Mr. 

Boyd had failed to pay his LFOs as directed and had not reported a change in 
f 

' 

I 

l 

\ 

\ 

l 

i 

i 

No. 33707-3-III; 33708-1-III; 33709-0-III; 33730-8-III 

State v. Boyd 

circumstances affecting his ability to make payments. In December 2014, the State 

successfully moved for bench warrants on Mr. Boyd's failure to comply with terms and 

conditions of his judgments and sentences. 

Mr. Boyd, who was incarcerated on other matters, then began writing a series of 

letters to the court. In summary, he asked that his warrants be quashed and the LFOs be 

modified or terminated on the basis of indigence. Some of Mr. Boyd's submissions to the 

court made boilerplate requests for evidentiary hearings. Others did not. Mr. Boyd did 

not request appointment of counsel. 

The court responded to Mr. Boyd's correspondence by letters and then by an order 

denying Mr. Boyd's motions to modify and/or terminate his LFOs under RCW 

10.01.160(4). Mr. Boyd appeals that order. 

Subsequent to the filing of Mr. Boyd's appeals, in February 2016, the State 

successfully moved for orders recalling the superior court LFO bench warrants. At that 

time, the court signed an agreed modification order on each of the four cases at issue here 

whereby it found Mr. Boyd willfully failed to pay his LFOs but did not impose any 

punishment. Mr. Boyd agreed to pay $5 .00 per month on each case beginning May 1, 

2016. Mr. Boyd was released from incarceration and appeared, as ordered, at the 

Spokane County Clerk's office. 

2 
l 

i 

No. 33707-3-111; 33708-1-111; 33709-0-111; 33730-8-111 

State v. Boyd 

ANALYSIS 

Because the parties have reached an agreement with respect to Mr. Boyd's current 

LFO obligation, this court is not in a position to award any effective relief should Mr. 

Boyd prevail. Mr. Boyd recognizes this fact but argues the court should nevertheless 

address his arguments. Mr. Boyd challenges the procedures used by the superior court in 

deciding motions for modification and termination of LFOs. Because the validity of such 

procedures is a matter of public importance and could arise in the future, Mr. Boyd claims 

substantive review is warranted. 

We are unpersuaded. After this case was fully briefed, the Supreme Court entered 

a decision discussing LFO procedures in City of Richland v. Wakefield,_ Wn.2d _, 

3 80 P .3d 459 (2016). Wakefield provides much of the guidance Mr. Boyd seeks. 1 Should 

Mr. Boyd be dissatisfied with the outcome of a future remission hearing despite 

Wakefield, an appeal can be made at that time with an appropriately developed record, 

including unambiguous requests for procedural protections such as counsel and an 

evidentiary hearing. 

1 Given Mr. Boyd's indigence and the significant amount of outstanding LFOs, 

Mr. Boyd would appear to have a strong argument, after Wakefield, for remission of his 

financial obligations, regardless of the procedures utilized by the superior court. 

Wakefield, 380 P.3d at 464-65. 

3 
1 

,I 

l 

I 

' j 

l ,1 

l 

! 

I 

I ;i 

i ) 

l 

j 

1 

! 

' 

No. 33707-3-III; 33708-1-III; 33709-0-III; 33730-8-III 

State v. Boyd 

INDIGENCE REPORT 

On October 5, 2016, Mr. Boyd submitted a report as to continued indigence and a 

motion to enlarge time to file such report. Mr. Boyd's motion to enlarge time is granted 

and the report is accepted for filing as of the date of its submission. 

COSTS 

Mr. Boyd has also filed a motion to not award appeal costs and accompanying 

motion to enlarge time to file the same. Based on the large number of outstanding LFOs, 

we grant both Mr. Boyd's motion to deny costs on appeal and his motion to enlarge time. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Boyd's appeal is dismissed as moot. Appellate costs will not be awarded. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

Pennell, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ. 

j 

4