FILED
AUGUST 1, 2017
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. 34450-9-111
Respondent, ) (consolidated with
) No. 34641-2-111)
V. )
)
DERRICK STEPHEN HANEY, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
SIDDOWAY, J. - Over three years after Derrick Haney pleaded guilty to three
counts of second degree child rape, he moved the trial court to modify or terminate the
legal financial obligations imposed in his judgment and sentence on the grounds that the
sentencing court had not conducted a Blazina 1 inquiry. After initially denying his
motion, the Benton County Superior Court granted it and ordered him transported to the
court for a new sentencing hearing. At resentencing, the court modified Mr. Haney's
judgment and sentence, waiving all discretionary LFOs and associated interest.
Mr. Haney appeals, challenging on substantive due process grounds both RCW
43.43.7541, under which a mandatory DNA2 collection fee was imposed, and RCW
1 State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P .3d 680 (2015).
2
Deoxyribonucleic acid.
No. 34450-9-III (consol. w/ No. 34641-2-III)
State v. Haney
7.68.035, under which a victim penalty assessment was imposed. While conceding that
the deferential rational basis standard applies and that both statutes serve a legitimate
state interest as applied to offenders who can afford to pay, Mr. Haney argues that
applying the statutes to offenders who do not have the ability to pay is not rational.
The same argument was made and rejected in State v. Seward, 196 Wn. App. 579,
384 P.3d 620 (2016), review denied,_ Wn.2d _ , 396 P.3d 349 (2017). We agree
with the majority in Seward that the two statutes are rationally related to legitimate state
interests as applied to all offenders, including those who are indigent at the time of
sentencing, because the statutes create funding sources for legitimate state purposes and
some offenders, including some indigent offenders, will be able to pay.
Mr. Haney asks in his brief that we waive costs on appeal if he does not prevail,
claiming he is currently indigent and will unlikely be able to pay in the future. "RAP
14.2 affords the appellate court latitude in determining if costs should be allowed." State
v. Nolan, 141 Wn.2d 620, 626, 8 P.3d 300 (2000). By general order, this court has
created a procedure by which appellants may provide a panel with evidence and
argument on the basis of which the panel can exercise informed discretion whether to
deny costs. See Gen. Order of Division III, In re the Matter of Court Administration
Order re: Request to Deny Cost Award (Wash. Ct. App. June 10, 2016). Mr. Haney has
not complied with our general order. We therefore decline to consider his request. The
2
No. 34450-9-111 (consol. w/ No. 34641-2-111)
State v. Haney
denial is without prejudice to his right to demonstrate to our court commissioner his
current or likely future inability to pay such costs. See RAP 14.2.
The order modifying Mr. Haney's judgment and sentence is 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:
j
Pennell, J.
3