Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 82744-8-I 

)

Respondent, )

) DIVISION ONE

v. )

)

JEFFREY ALEXANDER WIDMER, )

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant. )

)

MANN, C.J. — Jeffrey Widmer appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence 

finding him guilty of three counts of gross misdemeanor harassment. Widmer argues 

that the mandatory victim penalty assessment (VPA) is unconstitutional when imposed 

on indigent defendants. We affirm.

FACTS

The State charged Widmer with three counts of felony harassment for 

threatening to kill three different individuals at his apartment complex. Following a plea 

bargain, Widmer pleaded guilty to three counts of gross misdemeanor harassment. 

The parties’ joint sentencing recommendation included a mandatory $500 VPA. 

Defense counsel asked the court to follow the recommendation. The sentencing court 
No. 82744-8-I/2

-2-

waived all discretionary legal financial obligations due to Widmer’s indigency, but 

imposed the VPA. Widmer did not object at sentencing.

Widmer appeals.

ANALYSIS

Widmer argues that the VPA is unconstitutional when imposed on indigent 

defendants, violating the excessive fines clause of the Washington Constitution. WASH.

CONST. art. I, § 14. We disagree.

As a threshold matter, the State contends that Widmer invited any error by 

agreeing to recommend the VPA. See State v. Carson, 179 Wn. App. 961, 973, 320 

P.3d 185 (2014) (holding that the invited error doctrine precludes a criminal defendant 

from seeking appellate review of an error that he helped create, even when the alleged 

error implicates a constitutional right). The State also asserts that we need not consider 

Widmer’s argument for the first time on appeal because he cannot demonstrate that it is 

a manifest error affecting a constitutional right. RAP 2.5(a). Regardless of the 

constraints that the invited error doctrine or RAP 2.5(a) may place on Widmer’s appeal, 

his argument nonetheless fails. 

RCW 7.68.035(1) provides in part:

(a) When any person is found guilty in any superior court of having 

committed a crime . . . there shall be imposed by the court upon such 

convicted person a penalty assessment. The assessment shall be in 

addition to any other penalty or fine imposed by law and shall be five 

hundred dollars for each case or cause of action that includes one or more 

convictions of a felony or gross misdemeanor.

The Washington Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of this 

statute. State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911, 917, 829 P.2d 166 (1992). In Curry, the court 

reasoned that constitutional principles will not be implicated unless the government 
No. 82744-8-I/3

-3-

seeks to enforce collection of the assessments at a time when a defendant is unable to 

comply. Curry, 118 Wn.2d at 917. It is at the point when an indigent defendant may be 

faced with alternatives of payment or imprisonment that they may assert a constitutional 

objection based on the grounds of their indigency. Curry, 118 Wn.2d at 917. 

The Curry court noted that there are sufficient safeguards in the current 

sentencing scheme to prevent the imprisonment of indigent defendants: “a sentencing 

court shall require a defendant the opportunity to show cause why he or she should not 

be incarcerated for a violation of his or her sentence, and the court is empowered to 

treat a nonwillful violation more leniently. Moreover, contempt proceedings for 

violations of a sentence are defined as those which are intentional.” Curry, 118 Wn.2d 

at 918 (citing RCW 9.94A.200; RCW 7.21.010(1)(b)). The court concluded that, due to 

such safeguards, no defendant will be incarcerated for their inability to pay the penalty 

assessment unless the violation is willful. Curry, 118 Wn.2d at 918. 

Once our Supreme Court “has decided an issue of state law, that interpretation is 

binding on all lower courts until it is overruled.” State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 487, 

681 P.2d 227 (1984). 

Affirmed. 

WE CONCUR: