### FILED 

### Aug. 9, 2016 In the Office ofthe ClerkofCourt WA State CourtofAppeals, Division Ill

INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, V. LAWRENCE W. ADAMS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 33078-8-111
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, J. -LawrenceAdams, Jr. appeals various aspects ofthe sentence imposeduponhim in Spokane County SuperiorCourt. Findingno error, we affirm. 

### FACTS Mr. Adamswas convicted offelony assault after a benchtrial and sentencedto 303 months' confinement. The sentencing court imposed $18,668.66 in legal financial obligations (LFOs) and orderedMr. Adams to submit a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample. Thejudgmentand sentence alsoprovidedthis latterrequirementwould "not apply ifit is establishedthatthe Washington StatePatrol crime laboratory already has a sample from the defendant for a qualifying offense." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 142. Mr. Adams did not make any objections to thejudgmentand sentence onthe record.

# I
J l 1 l l ' l l i 

# l No. 33078-8-111 State v. Adams
ANALYSIS Mr. Adams challenges the superior court's imposition ofLFOs. Although no objection was made in the trial court, Mr. Adams asks us to reviewthe issue pursuantto State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). Mr. Adams'sBlazina claim fails because the LFOs at issue here are all mandatory rather than discretionary. 1 As such, they mustbe imposedregardless ofthe defendant's ability topay. State v. Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. 222,225, 366 P.3d 474 (2016). In addition to his general objection to the imposition ofLFOs, 

### Mr. Adams makes two specific objections to the imposition ofa mandatory $100 DNA collection fee under RCW 43.43.7541. Again, these arguments have beenraised for the first time on appeal. First, Mr. Adams argues that imposition ofthe DNA fee without inquiry into ability to payviolates his substantive due process rights. Second, he argues the mandatory DNA fee violates his equal protection rights by requiring first-time felony offenders topaythe fee once, while requiring repeat felony offenders to pay the fee multiple times.

1The sentencing court imposed a $500.00 victim assessment fee, a $200.00 criminal filing fee, and a $100.00 DNA collection fee. Each ofthese is mandated by statute. See RCW 7.68.035; RCW 36.18.020(2)(h); RCW43.43.7541. The sentencing court also imposed restitution of$17,868.66. Restitution is required where, as here, the offender is convicted ofan offense resulting in injury to a person. RCW 9.94A.753(5). 2No. 33078-8-III State v. Adams
Under RAP 2.5(a), we have discretion to decline review oferrors raised for the first time on appeal. An exception applies when apartypresents "manifest error affecting
a constitutional right." RAP 2.5(a). In order to prove manifest error, "[t]he defendant must identify a constitutional error and show how, in the context ofthe trial, the alleged
error actually affected the defendant's rights." State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). "[I]t is this showing ofactual prejudice that makes the error 'manifest', allowing appellate review." Id. (quoting State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688, 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). One caveat is that the facts necessary to the adjudication must be in the record on appeal for the exceptionto apply. Id. Although Mr. Adams's arguments involve alleged violations ofhis constitutional rights, the record before us is insufficient to grant relief. A substantive due process challenge to the imposition ofLFOs would involve analyzing Mr. Adams's financial circumstances at the time ofrecoupment. See State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230, 241-42, 930 P.2d 1213 (1997). Because recoupment has not begun, we cannotyet assess those circumstances. Additionally, standing to make an equal protection claim requires proof that an individual has been negatively impacted by a classification scheme. See State v. Handley, 115 Wn.2d 275, 290-91, 796 P.2d 1266 (1990). No suchproofis contained in the record. Given these circumstances, we decline to review Mr. Adams's arguments for
3 

# rj 

# I l 

### l 

# l l ! 1 l 1 

### 1 J 

# I 

# ' I
! No. 33078-8-III State v. Adams
the first time on direct appeal under RAP 2.5(a). Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. at 226-27. Finally, Mr. Adams argues the trial court erred in ordering him to submit a sample ofhis DNA under RCW 43.43.754 because he has already submitted a DNA sample as a result ofaprior conviction. We disagree. Mr. Adams'sjudgment and sentence form specifies a DNA sample need not be collected "ifit is established that the Washington State Patrol crime laboratory already has a sample from the defendant for a qualifying offense." CP at 142. This is consistent with the statute. Particularly given there was no evidence before the superior court regarding whether the statepatrol in fact had a sample ofMr. Adams's DNA, the court did not err in ordering the DNA collection. Based on the foregoing, the felonyjudgment and sentence ofthe trial court is affirmed. 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. 

# JG=

WE CONCUR: 

# (n..v.Jn
..r.(..,- ~Vv-.,,) \\. (~ Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ. / 1

- ') • 4