### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 49801

- 4

- II Respondent,

v. DARRELL KANTREAL JACKSON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant.
W ORSWICK , J.

— Darrell K. Jackson appeals the sentencing court ’ s imposition of legal financial obligations (LFOs). The sentencing court imposed a $100 deoxyribonu cleic acid (DNA) collection fee, a $500 v ictim p enalty a ssessment fee , and a $200 criminal filing fee

. Jackson argues the court erred by imposing the fees because he lacks the ability to pay. Jackson
further argues that the trial court ’ s failure to inquire into his ability to pay these fees wa s improper and violate d his equal protection and due process rights

. We affirm.
FACTS
Jackson was convicted of two counts of first degree murder , two counts of first degree aggravated murder, one count of first degree robbery, and one count of first degree burglary. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, Jackson filed a personal restraint petition (PRP)

. W e granted Jackson ’ s PRP with regard to sentencing issue s and remanded to the trial court f or resentencing. Jackson was resentenced on October 14, 2016. At senten cing, defense counsel requested
that the court waive no n mandatory LFOs. Defense counsel further stated: Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two February 21, 2018No. 49801

- 4

- II

2

And the $100 DNA testing fee, the $500 crime victim penalty assessment, and the $200 filing fee are mandatory. It ’ s legislative. It ’ s not within the Court ’ s discretion to go ahead and waive those.
V erbatim Report of Proceedings (RP) at 6. The sentencin g court then imposed $8 00 in mandatory LFOs: a crime victim penalty assessment of $500, a DNA fee of $100, an d a c riminal filing fee of $200.
Jackson appeals his sentence.
ANALYSIS Jackson challenges the LFOs imposed by the sentencing court. He specifically contends that the court should not have imposed any LFOs because he is indigent and unable to pay and because the imposition of the LFOs violates both equal protection and due process

. We disagree.
I

. F AILURE T O P RESERVE I SSUE S FOR R EVIEW
T he State argues that we should decline to review Jackson ’ s challenge to the imposition of mandatory LFOs because the issue was not properly preserved for appeal. We agree
. A defendant has the obligation to pro perly preserve a claim of error. State v. Bl azina , 182 Wn.2d 827, 83 0 , 344 P.3d 680 (2015)

. A defendant who fails to object to the imposition of LFOs at sentencing is not automatically entitled to review. RAP 2.5(a); Blazina , 182 Wn.2d at
832

. Here, Jackson made no objection to the court’s imposition of LFOs below and thereby failed to preserve a claim of error. RAP 2.5(a); Blazina , 182 Wn.2d at 83 2

. Accordingly, Jackson has failed to preserve any non constitutional arguments and we do not review the m
.No. 49801

- 4

- II

3 II. E QUAL P ROTECTION AND D UE P ROCESS C LAIMS
Jackson also argues that imposition of mandatory LFOs without any consideration of his ability to pay violates his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of law

. But
Jackson fails to sh ow a manifest constitutional error.
As stated above, Jackson made no objection to the trial court’s imposition of LFOs . We generally do not consider issues not raised in the trial court

. RAP 2.5(a)

. However, we will
review a “manifest error affecting a consti tutional right.” RAP 2.5(a)(3). For us to review such

an error , an appellant must demonstrate “(1) the error is manifest and (2) the error is truly of
constitutional dimension.” State v. O ’ Hara , 167 Wn.2d 91, 98, 217 P.3d 756 (2009).
An error is considered manifest when there is actual prejudice, meaning a plausible showing by the appellant that the asserted error had practical and identifiable consequences in
the trial. State v. Irby , 187 Wn. App. 183, 193, 347 P.3d 1103 (2015), review den ied , 184 Wn.2d 1036 (2016). We determine whether the error is so obvious on the record that it warrants appellate review. O ’

Hara , 167 Wn.2d at 99

- 100.
Jackson raises several constitutional challenges to the LFOs imposed, however he does
not address whet her a ny errors were manifest and he does not point to any identifiable prejudice.
Moreover , we have already considered these same arguments and ha ve rejected the m
. See State
v. Mathers , 193 Wn. Ap p. 913, 376 P.3d 1163 , review denied , 186 Wn.2d 1015 (2016)

. B ecause he fails to offer any support tha t the alleged constitutional errors were manifest,
we do not consider Jackson’s constitutional challenges further. RAP 10.3(a)(6).No. 49801

- 4

- II

4 II I

. C OSTS ON A PPEAL
Jackson requests that we deny any award of appellate costs due to his inability to pay.
Jackson ’ s ability to pay costs on appeal will be addressed by a commissioner of this court should
the State seek costs in this case

. RAP 14

. 2 (c) ; RCW 10.73.160(1).
We affirm Jackson ’ s sentence and the imposition of mandator y LFOs of the crime victim penalty assessment, DNA fee, and criminal filing fee. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RC W 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

______________________________ Worswick, J.
I concur:

_______________________________ Melnick, J.No. 49801

- 4

- II

5

B JORGEN , C.J. (concurring)

— I am of the view that an inquiry into ability to pay should also be carried out for mandatory legal financial obligations for the reasons expressed in my
dissent in State v. Seward , 196 Wn. App. 579, 384 P.3d 620 (2016), review denied , 188 W n.2d 1015 (2017). However, in recognition of the trend in the case law, I concur in this opinion.

_______________________________ Bjorgen, C.J.