Court Opinion

ID: 9898241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:29:22.396434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:14.164020
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                        Washington State
                                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Division Two

                                                                                       September 12, 2023

      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                         DIVISION II
    STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                            No. 57194-3-II

                               Respondent,

          v.

    LARRY DWAYNE BLACKWELL,                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION

                               Appellant.

         CRUSER, A.C.J. – Larry Blackwell was resentenced in 2022 for a crime he was convicted

of in 2006. Blackwell’s 2006 sentence included a $200 criminal filing fee and $100 DNA

collection fee. The resentencing court reimposed those fees without consideration of Blackwell’s

indigency. We hold that it erred in doing so and remand for both fees to be stricken. We also reject

the claim of error raised in Blackwell’s statement of additional grounds (SAG).1

                                              FACTS

         In 2006, Blackwell was sentenced to 375 months confinement after a jury convicted him

of first degree assault, second degree assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. At the time,

Blackwell had no income or assets and had been incarcerated since 2004. Blackwell’s sentence

was based on an offender score that included six prior felony convictions, including two

convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

1
    RAP 10.10.
No. 57194-3-II

          After our supreme court decided State v. Blake,2 Blackwell was resentenced to 274 months

confinement. The resentencing court carried over the remaining terms of Blackwell’s original

Judgment and Sentence, including a $200 criminal filing fee and a $100 DNA collection fee. The

record does not reflect that the court considered Blackwell’s indigency. Blackwell now appeals,

asking that the fees be stricken.

                                             ANALYSIS

                                            A. FILING FEE

          Criminal filing fees are mandatory only if the defendant is not indigent. RCW

36.18.020(2)(h). For indigent defendants, the court may not order the payment of such fees. RCW

10.01.160(3). Based on Blackwell’s financial circumstances, it appears the court would almost

certainly have found him to be indigent if it had considered the issue before imposing the fee.3 The

State concedes that “his continued incarceration and financial declaration make it highly likely

that the court would find him indigent under RCW 10.101.010(3)(c).” Br. of Resp’t at 4. Therefore,

as the parties agree, the court erred in imposing the $200 filing fee and it should be stricken.

                                      B. DNA COLLECTION FEE

          Effective July 1, 2023, DNA collection fees are no longer authorized. RCW 43.43.7541(2);

see also LAWS OF 2023, ch. 449, § 4. Blackwell is entitled to the benefit of this statutory

amendment because his case is on direct appeal. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 747, 426 P.3d

714 (2018). On remand, the trial court is directed to strike the DNA collection fee.

2
 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021) (holding unconstitutional the crime of unlawful possession
of a controlled substance).
3
    Indeed, the court found in 2006 that Blackwell was entitled to appeal at public expense.

                                                  2
No. 57194-3-II

                                               SAG

         Blackwell has filed a SAG. The SAG Blackwell filed is a photo copy of the CrR 7.8 motion

Blackwell filed in October, 2022 that this court treated as a personal restraint petition under cause

number 57507-8-II.4 In his SAG, Blackwell again argues that the amended information on which

he proceeded to trial used an incorrect statutory citation for the firearm enhancement. This claim

of error exceeds the scope of this appeal. This appeal is of the order correcting Blackwell’s

sentence pursuant to Blake. The proper time for Blackwell to raise this issue was in his original

appeal of his convictions. We reject this claim of error.

                                          CONCLUSION

         We remand for the court to strike the $200 filing fee and the $100 DNA collection 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 RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

                                                     Cruser, A.C.J.
    We concur:

    MAXA, J.

    CHE, J.

4
 Blackwell merely changed the caption from “Motion to Correct Sentence” to “Statement of
Additional Grounds.” Compare Mot. to Correct Sentence, In re Pers. Restraint of Blackwell, No.
57507-8-II (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2022), with SAG at 1.

                                                 3