Court Opinion

ID: 9898397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:30:25.671111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:17.439881
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       JULY 11, 2023
                                                               In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                              WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                             DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                            )         No. 39175-2-III
                                                )
                      Respondent,               )
                                                )
              v.                                )         UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                                )
KODY M. ELMER,                                  )
                                                )
                      Appellant.                )

       LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. — Kody Elmer appeals after pleading guilty to various

felonies. He raises three sentencing issues, and we raised one issue sua sponte. We

remand for the trial court to correct the community custody term for counts 4 and 5 and

for it to strike the community custody supervision fee. We otherwise affirm.

                                            FACTS

       In August 2022, Mr. Elmer pleaded guilty to attempting to allude a pursuing police

vehicle (count 1), identity theft in the first degree (count 2), identity theft in the second

degree (count 3), and two counts of assault in the third degree (counts 4 and 5). The trial

court imposed the following concurrent terms of incarceration: count 1—34 months,

count 2—63 months, count 3—43 months, and counts 4 and 5—51 months. The court
No. 39175-2-III
State v. Elmer

imposed 12 months of community custody for counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, a $1,000 fine

pursuant to RCW 9A.20.021, and community custody supervision fees. Mr. Elmer timely

appealed.

                                        ANALYSIS

       Mr. Elmer asserts the trial court erred when it (1) imposed the $1,000 fine without

inquiring into his indigency, (2) imposed community custody on counts 2 and 3, and

(3) imposed 12 months of community custody on counts 4 and 5. We sua sponte raised

the issue of whether the trial court erred when it imposed the community custody

supervision fee. We address these issues in turn.

       1.     THE $1,000 FINE WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED

       Mr. Elmer contends the sentencing court erred when it imposed the $1,000 fine

without determining whether he could pay. We disagree.

       Whenever a person is convicted, the trial court may order the payment of

costs, often referred to as legal financial obligations (LFOs), as part of the sentence.

RCW 10.01.160(1). By statute, the trial court is not authorized to order a defendant to

pay LFOs if they are indigent. RCW 10.01.160(3). For this reason, the sentencing court

“has a statutory obligation to make an individualized inquiry into a defendant’s current

                                              2
No. 39175-2-III
State v. Elmer

and future ability to pay before [it] imposes LFOs” under RCW 10.01.160(3). State v.

Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 830, 344 P.3d 680 (2015).

       Here, however, the trial court imposed the $1,000 fine pursuant to

RCW 9A.20.021, not RCW 10.01.160(3). As the State points out, we have previously

held that a fine imposed pursuant to RCW 9A.20.021 is not a court cost subject to

RCW 10.01.160(3), and the trial court is not required to conduct an inquiry as to the

defendant’s ability to pay when it imposes such a fine. State v. Clark, 191 Wn. App. 369,

375-76, 362 P.3d 309 (2015).

       In his reply brief, Mr. Elmer argues the Clark court did not discuss

RCW 9.94A.030(31), which includes “fines” in the definition of LFOs. Reply

Br. at 2. We disagree. The Clark court did address the definition of LFOs, former

RCW 9.94A.030(30) (2012), and specifically stated that the definition “distinguishes

among different types of costs, other financial obligations, and fines.” Clark, 191 Wn.

App. at 375. The Clark court distinguished the definitions of costs and fines when

reaching its holding that a sentencing court need not inquire about a defendant’s ability to

pay a fine. Id. at 375-76. Consistent with our precedent, we conclude that a fine imposed

pursuant to RCW 9A.20.021 is not a cost under RCW 10.01.160(3), and the sentencing

                                             3
No. 39175-2-III
State v. Elmer

court was not required to determine whether Mr. Elmer had the present or future ability to

pay it.

          2.     COMMUNITY CUSTODY WAS PROPERLY IMPOSED FOR THE IDENTITY THEFT
                 CONVICTIONS

          In his opening brief, Mr. Elmer argued the sentencing court erred by

imposing community custody on counts 2 and 3—his identity theft convictions.

The State responded by citing RCW 9.94A.701(3)(a), which expressly requires that

12 months of community custody be imposed for any crime against persons under

RCW 9.94A.411(2)(a), which includes RCW 9.35.020(2) (identify theft in the first

degree) and RCW 9.35.020(3) (identity theft in the second degree). In his reply, Mr.

Elmer properly concedes this issue.

          3.     THE COMMUNITY CUSTODY TERM MUST BE REDUCED FOR COUNTS 4 AND 5

          Mr. Elmer argues his 12-month community custody term causes his sentence for

counts 4 and 5 to exceed the statutory maximum. The State concedes this point but notes

that correction of the sentence will not make any substantive difference. We agree.

          Assault in the third degree (as well as identity theft in the second degree) is

a class C felony, punishable by a maximum of 5 years of confinement (60 months).

RCW 9A.36.031(2); RCW 9.35.020(3); RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c). If an offender’s standard

range term of confinement combined with the term of community custody exceeds the

                                                 4
No. 39175-2-III
State v. Elmer

statutory maximum for the crime, the sentencing court is required to reduce the term of

community custody to be within the statutory maximum. Former RCW 9.94A.701(9)

(2010).

       Here, Mr. Elmer pleaded guilty to counts 4 and 5, both for assault in the third

degree. The court imposed a 51-month term of confinement for those convictions and

12 months of community custody. The total sentence, including for counts 4 and 5, is

therefore 63 months, which is 3 months too long.

       That said, Mr. Elmer was sentenced to 12 months of community custody on count

2, identity theft in the first degree, which is a class B felony, punishable by up to 10 years

of confinement. RCW 9.35.020(2); RCW 9A.20.021(1)(b). The error noted in the

preceding paragraph therefore will have no effect on Mr. Elmer’s actual community

custody sentence. Nevertheless, we remand for the trial court to correct the community

custody sentence on counts 4 and 5.

       4.     THE SUPERVISION FEE WAS IMPROPERLY IMPOSED

       In our review of this appeal, we noted a likely unraised error. We asked the State

to provide a short brief or letter addressing whether the trial court erred when it imposed

the community custody supervision fee. The State responded by letter and acknowledged

the supervision fee should not have been imposed. We agree.

                                              5
No. 39175-2-111
State v. Elmer

       Effective July 1, 2022, the legislature removed the subsection of the statute that

allowed a trial court to impose community custody supervision fees as a condition of

community custody. See former RCW 9.94A.703(2)(d) (2018); SECOND SUBSTITUTE

H.B. 1818, 67th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2022). Mr. Elmer was sentenced after this

change took effect. Therefore, the sentencing court erred when it imposed the condition.

       Affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to make noted corrections.

       A majority of the 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.

WE CONCUR:                                                                j

    , f ~ ,.::r:
Fearing, C ./                             Siddoway, J.

                                             6