FILED
SEPT 27, 2016
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. 33249-7-111
Respondent, )
)
V. )
)
LYZETTE VARGAS, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. -Lyzette Vargas appeals her conviction for residential burglary,
challenging only certain aspects of her judgment and sentence that she did not object to at
sentencing. Since her arguments are ones we have repeatedly rejected in recent months,
we summarily affirm without significant discussion.
Specifically, Ms. Vargas argues that the trial court did not conduct an inquiry into
her ability to pay prior to imposing sentence, imposition of the DNA collection fee
violates her due process and equal protection rights, and she should not have been
ordered to provide an additional DNA sample.
Sentencing in this case occurred March 24, 2015, twelve days after the decision in
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). In response to an inquiry from
the trial court, Ms. Vargas confirmed that she was employable. The court then imposed
No. 33249-7-III
State v. Vargas
legal financial obligations (LFOs) totaling $2,848. Of that sum, mandatory assessments
that are made without concern for the defendant's ability to pay total $800. State v.
Lundy, 176 Wn. App. 96, 102, 308 P.3d 755 (2013) (mandatory fees, that include victim
restitution, victim assessments, DNA fees, and criminal filing fees, operate without the
court's discretion by legislative design); State v. Kuster, 175 Wn. App. 420, 424, 306
P.3d 1022 (2013) (victim assessment and DNA collection fee mandatory). Similarly, the
$500 fine is not subject to a Blazina inquiry. State v. Clark, 191 Wn. App. 369, 362 P.3d
309 (2015).
At least $1,298 of the remaining $1,548 involve clearly discretionary costs and
were subject to the statutory inquiry. 1 Although Blazina empowers appellate courts to
consider LFO challenges where the trial court did not conduct the statutory inquiry at
sentencing, it is less certain whether that discretionary authority applies to post-Blazina
sentencings where an inadequate inquiry was conducted. Assuming that we have such
authority, we decline to exercise it under the facts of this case. Ms. Vargas admitted she
was employable and did not plead any impediment to earning a living upon release from
custody.
1
"It is unclear to us whether the $250 jury demand fee is a mandatory or
discretionary cost." State v. Clark, No. 32839-2-III, slip op. at 4 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 8,
2016), http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/3 283 92_pub. pdf (comparing statutes and
cases).
2
No. 33249-7-III
State v. Vargas
The remaining issues need even less discussion. As to the claim that her due
process rights were violated by imposition of the DNA collection fee, Ms. Vargas can
point to no facts in the record suggesting she cannot pay the $100 fee. This alleged error
therefore is not manifest and we decline to review it. RAP 2.5(a)(3); State v. Lewis, 194
Wn. App. 709, 715, _ P.3d _ (2016); State v. Shelton, 194 Wn. App. 660, 674-75,
_ P.3d _ (2016); State v. Stoddard, 192 Wn. App. 222,366 P.3d 474 (2016).
The equal protection argument fares no better. Although it states a reviewable
constitutional claim, it does not have any merit, in large part because there is no factual
basis to establish that anyone was negatively impacted by the classification. Lewis, 194
Wn. App. at 715-20; State v. Johnson, 194 Wn. App. 304, 374 P.3d 1206 (2016); State v.
Mathers, 193 Wn. App. 913,376 P.3d 1163 (2016).
Ms. Vargas next contends that she should not have to provide an additional DNA
sample. However, the record does not contain any evidence indicating whether she has
done so in the past. Accordingly, there is no basis for relief. Lewis, 194 Wn. App. at
720-21.
We grant Ms. Vargas' motion to permit the filing of her motion to waive appellate
costs. Having considered her request, a majority has decided to grant the motion,
although this author would deny the motion.
3
No. 33249-7-III
State v. Vargas
Affirmed.
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:
Pennell, J.
4