State of Washington v. James Edward Boyd ( 2016 )

FILED
NOVEMBER 29, 2016
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division Ill
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 33707-3-111
) (consolidated with
Respondent, ) No. 33708-1-111
) No. 33709-0-111
v. ) No. 33730-8-111)
)
JAMES EDWARD BOYD, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Appellant. )
PENNELL, J. -James Boyd appeals from the superior court's order denying his
motion under RCW 10.01.160(4) to terminate or modify legal financial obligations
(LFOs) imposed as part of the judgment and sentence in four separate criminal
convictions. We dismiss his appeal as moot.
FACTS
Mr. Boyd has four long-standing felony convictions that have resulted in an array
of LFOs. On numerous occasions, the superior court has found Mr. Boyd in violation of
his LFO orders. By October 2014, Mr. Boyd's total LFO balance was $19,617.00. At
that time, the court collection deputy reviewed Mr. Boyd's payments and alleged Mr.
Boyd had failed to pay his LFOs as directed and had not reported a change in
f
'
I
l
\\
No. 33707-3-III; 33708-1-III; 33709-0-III; 33730-8-III
State v. Boyd
circumstances affecting his ability to make payments. In December 2014, the State
successfully moved for bench warrants on Mr. Boyd's failure to comply with terms and
conditions of his judgments and sentences.
Mr. Boyd, who was incarcerated on other matters, then began writing a series of
letters to the court. In summary, he asked that his warrants be quashed and the LFOs be
modified or terminated on the basis of indigence. Some of Mr. Boyd's submissions to the
court made boilerplate requests for evidentiary hearings. Others did not. Mr. Boyd did
not request appointment of counsel.
The court responded to Mr. Boyd's correspondence by letters and then by an order
denying Mr. Boyd's motions to modify and/or terminate his LFOs under RCW
10.01.160(4). Mr. Boyd appeals that order.
Subsequent to the filing of Mr. Boyd's appeals, in February 2016, the State
successfully moved for orders recalling the superior court LFO bench warrants. At that
time, the court signed an agreed modification order on each of the four cases at issue here
whereby it found Mr. Boyd willfully failed to pay his LFOs but did not impose any
punishment. Mr. Boyd agreed to pay $5 .00 per month on each case beginning May 1,
2016. Mr. Boyd was released from incarceration and appeared, as ordered, at the
Spokane County Clerk's office.
l 2
i
i
No. 33707-3-111; 33708-1-111; 33709-0-111; 33730-8-111
State v. Boyd
ANALYSIS
Because the parties have reached an agreement with respect to Mr. Boyd's current
LFO obligation, this court is not in a position to award any effective relief should Mr.
Boyd prevail. Mr. Boyd recognizes this fact but argues the court should nevertheless
address his arguments. Mr. Boyd challenges the procedures used by the superior court in
deciding motions for modification and termination of LFOs. Because the validity of such
procedures is a matter of public importance and could arise in the future, Mr. Boyd claims
l
i
substantive review is warranted.
We are unpersuaded. After this case was fully briefed, the Supreme Court entered
a decision discussing LFO procedures in City of Richland v. Wakefield,_ Wn.2d _ ,
3 80 P .3d 459 (2016). Wakefield provides much of the guidance Mr. Boyd seeks. 1 Should
Mr. Boyd be dissatisfied with the outcome of a future remission hearing despite
Wakefield, an appeal can be made at that time with an appropriately developed record,
including unambiguous requests for procedural protections such as counsel and an
evidentiary hearing.
1
Given Mr. Boyd's indigence and the significant amount of outstanding LFOs,
Mr. Boyd would appear to have a strong argument, after Wakefield, for remission of his
financial obligations, regardless of the procedures utilized by the superior court.
Wakefield, 380 P.3d at 464-65.
3
No. 33707-3-III; 33708-1-III; 33709-0-III; 33730-8-III
State v. Boyd
INDIGENCE REPORT
On October 5, 2016, Mr. Boyd submitted a report as to continued indigence and a
motion to enlarge time to file such report. Mr. Boyd's motion to enlarge time is granted
and the report is accepted for filing as of the date of its submission.
COSTS
Mr. Boyd has also filed a motion to not award appeal costs and accompanying
motion to enlarge time to file the same. Based on the large number of outstanding LFOs,
we grant both Mr. Boyd's motion to deny costs on appeal and his motion to enlarge time.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Boyd's appeal is dismissed as moot. Appellate costs will not be awarded.
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
1
,I
2.06.040.
l
I
Pennell, J.
'
j WE CONCUR:
l
,1
l Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ.
j
!I
I
;i 4
i
)
l
j
1
!