l

j 

### l 

# j 

# I I I 

# ' 

# I

ii 1 l 

# 1 

# l FILED OCTOBER4, 2016 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division Ill

INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) V. ) 

### ) RICHARD EUGENE CORNWELL, JR., ) 

### ) Appellant. ) No. 33326-4-111

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, J.

- Richard Cornwell appeals a superiorcourt order denying his motionto vacate legal financial obligations (LFOs). Because the State has notyet attemptedto enforce the LFO order, Mr. Cornwell is not an aggrievedparty. His appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND While serving a lengthy prison sentence, Mr. Cornwell filed a motion in Walla Walla County Superior Courtto vacate LFOs. Mr. Cornwell owes over $5,000 in LFOs, butpayments are not scheduledto beginuntil afterhis release from prison, which is projectedto occur in 2025. Thebasis ofMr. Cornwell'smotionto vacate was there had notbeen a sufficient finding ofability to pay under

### State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (2015).No. 33326-4-111 

### State v. Cornwell
The superior court denied Mr. Cornwell's motion after holding a briefhearing. Mr. Cornwell appeals. ANALYSIS UnderRAP 3.1, "[o]nly an aggrievedparty may seek review by the appellate court." Mr. Cornwell is not yet an aggrievedparty as he is still in custody andno effort has been made to enforce payment ofhis LFOs. 

### State v. Mahone, 98 Wn. App. 342, 348, 989 P.2d 583 (1999). Although the trial court denied Mr. Cornwell's motion to vacate costs, "he suffers no concrete injury until the State seeks to enforcepayment and contemporaneously determines his ability to pay." 

### Id.; State v. Smits, 152 Wn. App. 514, 525,216 P.3d 1097 (2009). While Mr. Cornwell'sjudgment and sentence authorized the Department ofCorrections to deduct inmate wages for purposes ofrepayment ofLFOs under RCW 72.11.20, this authorization does not constitute a collection action by the State "requiring inquiry into a defendant's financial status." 

### State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24, 27-28, 189 P.3d 811 (2008). The Supreme Court's decision in

### Blazina does not undermine the reasoning in decisions such as 

### Mahone, Smits, and 

### Crook. Blazina addressed the requirements for a superior court's factual findings regarding ability to pay court costs. A defendant dissatisfied with the findings set forth in his orherjudgment and sentence can bring up
2

### No. 33326-4-111 

### State v. Cornwell
this issue in a direct appeal. 

### See State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393, 267 P.3d 511 (2011) (reversing for insufficient findings 

### pre-Blazina). But

### Blazina did not create a mechanism for reopening a finaljudgment in cases like Mr. Comwell's where no objections were made during the direct appeal process. Importantly, 

### Blazina did not reverse 

### State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230, 930 P.2d 1213 (1997), whichheld the constitutional right to contest imposition offines on the basis of indigence is not ripe until enforcement. 

### Mahone, Smits and 

### Crook are all premised on 

### Blank. They are not undermined by 

### Blazina. CONCLUSION Mr. Comwell's LFO claims are denied as they are not ripe for review. The appeal is dismissed. 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:

~I 

### K rsmo, 

### J 3