Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
June 27, 2023
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 57034-3-II
Respondent,
v.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DANNY ALLEN WING,
Appellant.
PRICE, J. — Danny A. Wing appeals the legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed as part
of his sentence following his 2008 guilty plea to multiple offenses. We decline to consider the
issue under RAP 2.5(a). Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
In November 2008, the State charged Wing with multiple counts of felony violation of a
no-contact order—domestic violence (VNCO—DV), hit and run—DV, attempting to elude a
pursuing police vehicle, reckless driving, and reckless endangerment—DV. On December 31,
2008, Wing pleaded guilty to an amended information charging him with two counts of felony
VNCO-DV, hit and run—DV, attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, and reckless driving.
As part of Wing’s sentence, the superior court imposed various LFOs. There was no discussion
of LFOs during Wing’s sentencing.
No. 57034-3-II
Between November 2015 and March 2016, Wing filed numerous motions to modify or
terminate his LFOs. On May 5, 2016, the superior court denied a motion to terminate the LFOs
but waived the remaining balance owed for attorney fees and fines.
By March 2021, Wing had finished paying the principal amount of his LFOs, so he sought
to have any accrued interest waived by filing another motion to reduce or waive his LFOs. The
superior court found that Wing had paid the principal balance of his LFOs in full and waived all
non-restitution interest accrued before June 7, 2018. On July 20, 2021, the Clark County Superior
Court Clerk certified that Wing’s judgment was satisfied.
On June 2, 2022, Wing filed a notice of appeal designating his 2008 judgment and sentence.
A commissioner of this court ruled that the late notice of appeal would be accepted but limited
Wing’s appeal to only the sentence imposed. Ruling on Mot. (July 14, 2022).1
ANALYSIS
Wing appeals the imposition of LFOs, arguing that the superior court failed to conduct an
individualized inquiry into his ability to pay LFOs as required by State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827,
344 P.3d 680 (2015). The State argues that we should decline to consider Wing’s challenge to his
LFOs under RAP 2.5. We agree with the State and decline to consider Wing’s challenge to the
imposition of LFOs in his 2008 judgment and sentence.
1
We note that the State did not file a motion to modify the Commissioner’s ruling accepting the
late notice of appeal. See RAP 17.7 (“An aggrieved person may object to a ruling of a
commissioner . . . only by a motion to modify the ruling directed to the judges of the court served
by the commissioner. . . . not later than 30 days after the ruling is filed.”). Accordingly, we do not
address the propriety of appealing a nearly 15 year old judgment and sentence when the judgment
has been fully satisfied.
2
No. 57034-3-II
Under RAP 2.5(a), we “may refuse to review any claim of error which was not raised in
the trial court.” Although RAP 2.5(a) contains three exceptions, none of those exceptions apply
to unpreserved LFO errors. See RAP 2.5(a)(1)-(3) (“[A] party may raise the following claimed
errors for the first time in the appellate court: (1) lack of trial court jurisdiction, (2) failure to
establish facts upon which relief can be granted, and (3) manifest error affecting a constitutional
right.”). Further, unpreserved LFO errors are not the type of sentencing errors that requires review
as a matter of right. State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d at 833-34.
Wing clearly did not raise any issues regarding LFOs at the time of sentencing. Therefore,
this issue is being raised for the first time on appeal, which allows us to decline its consideration.
Also, Wing fails to address waiver and offers no compelling justification for us to exercise our
discretion to review the imposition of LFOs at his 2008 sentencing.2
Wing’s judgment and sentence has been final for almost 15 years and Wing’s LFOs have
been paid in full. Under these circumstances, we exercise our discretion and decline to consider
Wing’s challenge to the LFOs imposed as part of his 2008 judgment and sentence.
We affirm.
2
In his reply brief, Wing argues that we could review the issues related to LFOs through ineffective
assistance of counsel. However, issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are too late to
warrant consideration. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).
Therefore, we do not consider Wing’s argument regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
3
No. 57034-3-II
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.
PRICE, J.
We concur:
LEE, P.J.
CHE, J.
4