### FILED NOVEMBER 29, 2016 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 33707-3-111 (consolidatedwith No. 33708-1-111 No. 33709-0-111 No. 33730-8-111) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, J. -JamesBoyd appeals from the superior court's order denying his motion underRCW 10.01.160(4)toterminate ormodify legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed as part ofthejudgmentand sentence in four separate criminal convictions. We dismiss his appeal as moot. 

### FACTS Mr. Boydhas four long-standing felony convictionsthathaveresulted in an array ofLFOs. Onnumerous occasions, the superior courthas found Mr. Boydinviolation of his LFO orders. By October2014, Mr. Boyd'stotal LFO balance was $19,617.00. At thattime, the court collection deputy reviewedMr. Boyd'spayments and alleged Mr. Boydhad failed to pay his LFOs as directed and hadnotreported 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 onMr. Boyd's failure to comply with terms and conditions ofhisjudgments 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 ofindigence. Some ofMr. Boyd's submissions to the court made boilerplate requests for evidentiaryhearings. Others did not. Mr. Boyd did not request appointment ofcounsel. The courtresponded 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. Subsequentto the filing ofMr. 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 ofthe 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 permonth on each case beginning May 1, 2016. Mr. Boyd was released from incarceration and appeared, as ordered, atthe 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 reliefshould Mr. Boydprevail. 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 ofLFOs. Because the validity ofsuch procedures is a matter ofpublic importance and could arise in the future, Mr. Boyd claims substantive review is warranted. We are unpersuaded. Afterthis case was fully briefed, the Supreme Court entered
a decision discussing LFO procedures in City of Richlandv. Wakefield,_ Wn.2d_, 380 P.3d 459 (2016). Wakefieldprovides much ofthe guidance Mr. Boyd seeks. 1 Should Mr. Boyd be dissatisfied with the outcome ofa 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.

1Given Mr. Boyd's indigence and the significant amount ofoutstanding LFOs, Mr. Boyd would appearto have a strong argument, after Wakefield, for remission ofhis financial obligations, regardless ofthe 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 ofthe date ofits 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 ofoutstandingLFOs,
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 ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040. Pennell, J. WE CONCUR:

Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ. 

## j
4