Court Opinion

ID: 9898495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:31:05.352094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:25.734647
License: Public Domain

Filed
                                                                                      Washington State
                                                                                      Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Division Two

                                                                                         June 13, 2023

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

                                          DIVISION II
 STATE OF WASHINGTON,                                                No. 57568-0-II

                                Respondent,

         v.                                                    UNPUBLISHED OPINION

 TREYSHAWN DONOVAN HILTON,

                                Appellant.

       CHE, J.⎯A jury convicted Treyshawn Donovan Hilton of custodial assault. Hilton

appeals the imposition of community custody supervision fees. He argues, and the State

concedes, that recent statutory amendments removed sentencing courts’ authorization to impose

community custody supervision fees. We accept the State’s concession and remand for the trial

court to strike the community custody supervision fees from Hilton’s judgment and sentence.

       The State charged Treyshawn Donovan Hilton with one count of custodial assault and a

jury found him guilty. On June 17, 2022, the trial court imposed a low-end standard range

sentence of three months. The trial court found Hilton indigent and stated that it would impose

only mandatory legal financial obligations. However, the judgment and sentence contained

boilerplate language ordering Hilton to “pay supervision fees as determined by DOC.” Clerk’s

Papers at 36. Hilton filed a notice of appeal to this court that same day.
No. 57568-0-II

        RCW 9.94A.703 contains mandatory, waivable, discretionary, and other special

community custody conditions trial courts could impose on criminal defendants. Shortly before

Hilton’s sentencing, the statute stated that “[u]nless waived by the court, as part of any term of

community custody, the court shall order an offender to . . . [p]ay supervision fees as determined

by the department.” Former RCW 9.94A.704(2)(d) (2021). The legislature removed that

provision from the statute, effective June 9, 2022. LAWS OF 2022, ch. 29 § 7. By the date of

Hilton’s sentencing, trial courts no longer had authority to impose supervision fees as part of a

term of community custody.

        Thus, we must remand for the trial court to strike the community custody supervision

fees.

        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.

                                                      Che, J.
 We concur:

 Lee, J.

 Glasgow, C.J.

                                                  2