Automated Summary
Key Facts
In February 2024, a jury found Cleve Allen Goheen Rengo guilty of theft in the third degree. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a crime victim penalty assessment (CVPA) in the judgment and sentence without inquiring whether Rengo was indigent. Rengo appealed, arguing he was indigent and the CVPA should be stricken. The State conceded Rengo was indigent at the time of sentencing. An amendment to RCW 7.68.035 took effect on July 1, 2023, prohibiting trial courts from imposing CVPA on indigent defendants.
Issues
Whether the trial court should strike the crime victim penalty assessment (CVPA) and accompanying sentencing conditions because the defendant was indigent at the time of sentencing, as required by RCW 7.68.035(4), which prohibits CVPA imposition on indigent defendants
Holdings
The Washington Court of Appeals Division Two reversed the trial court's imposition of a crime victim penalty assessment (CVPA) and accompanying sentencing conditions regarding payments. The court accepted the State's concession that respondent Cleve Allen Goheen Rengo was indigent at the time of sentencing and concluded that the CVPA should be stricken under RCW 7.68.035(4), which prohibits imposing CVPA on indigent defendants. The case was remanded with instructions to strike the CVPA and its accompanying sentencing conditions.
Remedies
The court reversed and remanded the case with instructions to strike the crime victim penalty assessment (CVPA) and all accompanying sentencing conditions regarding CVPA payments.
Legal Principles
The court held that trial courts must conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's ability to pay before imposing discretionary costs like the Crime Victim Penalty Assessment (CVPA). Under RCW 7.68.035, courts cannot impose CVPA if the defendant is indigent at sentencing. The standard of review is abuse of discretion, and failure to conduct the required inquiry constitutes per se abuse.
Precedent Name
- State v. Thurlby
- State v. Woods
- State v. Ramirez
Cited Statute
Revised Code of Washington
Judge Name
- Price, J.
- Maxa, J.
- Veljaci, A.C.J.
Passage Text
- Rengo argues that the $500 CVPA and all accompanying conditions regarding payments must be stricken because he was indigent. The State concedes that Rengo was indigent at the time of sentencing and that the CVPA should be stricken. We accept the State's concession.
- A trial court's decision of whether to impose legal obligation fee is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A 'court abuses its discretion when its decision is 'manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.''
- On July 1, 2023, an amendment to RCW 7.68.035 took effect, providing that a trial court 'shall not impose the [CVPA] under this section if the court finds that the defendant, at the time of sentencing, is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3).' Before imposing a discretionary cost, a court has an obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay.