FILED
DECEMBER 11, 2018
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. 35479-2-III
Respondent, )
)
v. )
)
ANTONIO EMANUEL COOK, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
FEARING, J. — Antonio Cook asks this court to remand his prosecution to the trial
court to conduct a hearing pursuant to RCW 9.94A.777 to determine whether he suffers a
mental health condition such that court costs should be denied. We decline this request,
but vacate the imposition of court costs nonetheless based on Laws of 2018, chapter 269,
§ 17(2)(h) and State v. Ramirez, ___ Wn.2d ___, 426 P.3d 714 (2018).
FACTS
We do not recite the underlying facts behind this prosecution for attempted
robbery and assault. This appeal only concerns matters related to Antonio Cook’s
sentencing.
PROCEDURE
The State of Washington initially charged Antonio Cook with attempted first
degree robbery and three counts of second degree assault. The State alleged Cook was
No. 35479-2-III
State v. Cook
armed with a deadly weapon for each of the charges. The State later dismissed one of the
assault charges.
During trial, Antonio Cook heatedly spoke on occasion. As a result, the trial court
twice held Cook in contempt. After the second order of contempt, Cook exclaimed, as
security escorted him from the courtroom, “f—k you” to the court “and f—k you, too” to
an unidentified person in the courtroom. Report of Proceedings at 227. On one day,
Cook appeared for trial dressed in a tie and jail jumpsuit.
Antonio Cook’s defense counsel moved, during mid-trial, for a competency
evaluation of Cook. Counsel commented that he had worked in the civil commitment
department of the public defender’s office for five years, during which time he
represented patients at Eastern State Hospital, and he conducted one hundred felony trials
on behalf of the accused. Counsel further remarked that a trial court had never before
held one of his clients twice in contempt for outbursts in court. Counsel added that Cook
took the antipsychotic medications Xprexa and Prozac. The trial court recognized that
Cook likely suffered from mental health problems, but the court denied the request for a
competency evaluation.
The jury acquitted Cook on the attempted first degree robbery charge. The jury
could not reach verdicts on the two second degree assault charges and instead convicted
Cook of two lesser included charges of fourth degree assault. The jury also returned
special verdicts finding that Cook was not armed with a deadly weapon during any of the
2
No. 35479-2-III
State v. Cook
charged incidents.
The trial court sentenced Antonio Cook to nine months’ imprisonment with credit
for time served on the first count of fourth degree assault. The court issued a suspended
sentence of 364 days’ imprisonment on the second count of fourth degree assault. The
court imposed $700 in legal financial obligations, which included a $500 victim
assessment fee and $200 in court costs. Cook registered no objection, during sentencing,
to the imposition of the financial obligations. The trial court underwent no inquiry into
Cook’s financial condition. The trial court also ordered Cook to undergo a mental health
evaluation and comply with all treatment recommendations.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Antonio Cook asks us to reverse and remand for a hearing to determine
if he can afford the imposition of judgment against him for $200 in court costs. He
contends that the trial court failed, despite his mental health condition, to determine,
under RCW 9.94A.777(1), whether he could afford to pay the costs. In the alternative, he
maintains that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to raise RCW
9.94A.777(1) as a bar to imposition of the $200. Cook does not challenge the imposition
of the $500 victim assessment penalty.
3
No. 35479-2-III
State v. Cook
RCW 9.94A.777 provides:
(1) Before imposing any legal financial obligations upon a defendant
who suffers from a mental health condition, other than restitution or the
victim penalty assessment under RCW 7.68.035, a judge must first
determine that the defendant, under the terms of this section, has the means
to pay such additional sums.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant suffers from a
mental health condition when the defendant has been diagnosed with a
mental disorder that prevents the defendant from participating in gainful
employment, as evidenced by a determination of mental disability as the
basis for the defendant’s enrollment in a public assistance program, a
record of involuntary hospitalization, or by competent expert evaluation.
We lack information sufficient to hold that the trial court should have denied $200
in court costs because of Antonio Cook’s suffering of a mental health condition. Defense
counsel mentioned that Cook took antipsychotic drugs, and we know that Cook engaged
in at least two emotional outbursts during trial. Nevertheless, we lack information as to
any diagnosis of a mental health condition. More importantly, we lack information about
the employability of Cook. We know he receives food stamps, but do not know if he
enrolled in the public assistance program because of a mental health condition. We do
not know if Cook underwent involuntary hospitalization. We have no expert evaluation
in the appellate record.
We nonetheless, based on the Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in
State v. Ramirez, ___ Wn.2d ___, 426 P.3d 714 (2018), reverse the imposition of the
$200 court costs. The trial court understandably did not conduct an inquiry, during
sentencing, into the financial circumstances of Antonio Cook because the State only
4
No. 35479-2-III
State v. Cook
sought those costs deemed mandatory at the time. The Washington State Legislature has
since passed House Bill 1783, Laws of 2018, chapter 269, which prohibits courts from
imposing the $200 filing fee on indigent defendants. LA ws OF 2018, ch. 269, § 17(2)(h).
In State v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held the statute to apply prospectively to cases
pending on appeal. The record shows Antonio Cook to be an indigent defendant.
Antonio Cook did not expressly seek reversal of the court costs based on the 2018
statute and State v. Ramirez. We nonetheless apply the statute and case because Cook
seeks vacation of those costs on other grounds, and thus his assignment of error relates to
the relief we grant.
CONCLUSION
We remand to the trial court for the vacation of the $200 court costs imposed on
Antonio Cook.
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.
Fearing, J.
WE CONCUR:
LA . . ,,V-c.\-~W\.\-1 c..~ 1
awrence-Berrey, C.J. T ) • Pennell, J.
5