### 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. 

### TONY A LEIGH KIEHN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 

### 33830-4-111

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Pennell, J. -TonyaLeigh Kiehn appeals from the 

### 2015 Adams County Superior Court's denial ofhermotion to remitpaymentoflegal financial obligations (LFOs). AfterMs. Kiehn filed her appeal, the superior court entered an order remitting the LFOs and waiving the accrued interest. Inthe interests of justice, we grant authority to theNo. 33830-4-111 

### State v. Kiehn superior court nunc pro tune to enter the order ofremission, and dismiss her appeal as moot. RAP l.2(a), 7.2(e), 12.2. DISCUSSION Ms. Kiehn pleaded guilty in November 2008 to third degree theft. At sentencing, the Adams County Superior Court imposed the following LFOs: $200 filing fee; $500 victim assessment; $30 sheriffs fee; $500 for the court-appointed attorney; and a $500 fine. Ms. Kiehn had already paid $3,000 in restitution. She moved for remission ofher LFOs in September 2015, presenting evidence that she was homeless and that her entire income consisted ofsocial security disability payments and food stamps. The superior court denied Ms. Kiehn's motion to remit, but reduced hermonthly obligation to $5.00. Ms. Kiehn appealed. After Ms. Kiehn filed her appeal, the Washington Supreme Court decided 

### City of 

### Richlandv. Wakefield,_ Wn.2d _, 380 P.3d 459 (2016). 

### Wakefieldholds that a court is prohibited from ordering a defendant to pay LFOs iftheir only source ofincome is social security disability benefits, or ifthey ortheir family would otherwise suffer a manifest hardship by payment ofLFOs. 

### Id. at 464-66. In light of 

### Wakefield, the State filed a motion to strike oral argument and moved in superior court for an order for remission ofMs. Kiehn's LFOs. Despite the fact that the superior court did not have

2No. 33830-4-111 

### State v. Kiehn approval from this court1to address a decision currently underreview, the superior court remitted Ms. Kiehn's outstanding LFOs and waived the accrued interest. Here, as in 

### Wakefield, the appellant's sole current sources ofincome are her social security disability benefits and food stamps. Accordingly, we agree with·the parties that payment ofthe LFOs would impose a manifest injustice on Ms. Kiehn. Normally, we would then remand the matterto the superior court for entry ofan orderremitting the outstanding LFOs and interest. 

### See Wakefield, 380 P.3d at 464. Here, however, the State moved for and obtained an order ofremission without seeking the permission ofthis court. 

### See RAP 7.2(e). Because we have the authority to liberally construe the rules to promotejustice (RAP 1.2(a)), and may take any action that the merits ofthe case and the interests of justice may require (RAP 12.2), we grant authority to the superior court nunc pro tune to enter the orderremitting Ms. Kiehn's LFOs and accrued interest. CONCLUSION Ms. Kiehn thus has the reliefshe requested, and neitherparty contends her case implicates the kind ofcontinuing and substantialpublic interest thatjustifies further review. 

### See State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901,907,287 P.3d 584 (2012) (issues that are

1A party must seekpermission from this courtpriorto filing a postjudgment motion in the trial court ifthe trial court determination will change a decision currently being reviewed by this court. RAP 7.2(e). 3

### No. 33830-4-111 State v. Kiehn technically moot may still be retained and decided ifthey involve matters ofcontinuing and substantial public interest). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 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 pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

# ~

# ·ct Pennell, J. WE CONCUR: 

# ,:jzll,otO '

# ;t Siddoway, J.

# ~ '

4 

# I

J