Opinion
No. 27191-9-III.
September 17, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Benton County, No. 02-1-00086-3, Vic L. VanderSchoor, J., entered June 11, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Sweeney and Korsmo, JJ .
David L. Enlow appeals the trial court's denial of his pro se request to strike his legal financial obligations ordered as part of a 2002 conviction. Mr. Enlow contends the court should have conducted a factual hearing before denying his request. We find a hearing was conducted and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Enlow's motion to strike his payment obligation. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2002, a jury found Mr. Enlow guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. The court sentenced him to pay a $2,000 fine plus $500 for victim assessment, $147 for court costs, and $400 for a court-appointed attorney. In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed Mr. Enlow's conviction and mandated that he pay an additional $209.52 in appellate costs plus interest. See State v. Enlow, No. 21281-1-III, 2004 WL 100331 (Jan. 22, 2004).
On April 17, 2008, Mr. Enlow was released from prison. On May 16, he filed a motion to terminate his legal financial obligations in the judgment and sentence. During the hearing, the court inquired whether Mr. Enlow was employed, he replied, "No." Report of Proceedings (RP) (June 11, 2008) at 2. The court then asked whether Mr. Enlow had talked to someone in the clerk's office regarding a minimal monthly payment plan. Again, Mr. Enlow replied, "No." Id. The court then stated that Mr. Enlow needed to contact the clerk's office and denied the motion. Mr. Enlow appealed. He has since returned to jail.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Mr. Enlow's motion to terminate his financial obligations. Mr. Enlow contends the court failed to adequately inquire into his reasons for termination.
We review a motion to modify financial obligations for abuse of discretion. See State v. Campbell, 84 Wn. App. 596, 600-01, 929 P.2d 1175 (1997). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons. State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wn.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971).
Relying on former RCW 9.94A.634 (2002), recodified at RCW 9.94A.6333, Mr. Enlow argues the court failed to inquire into the reasons for noncompliance and whether the noncompliance was willful. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law this court reviews de novo. State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 346, 68 P.3d 282 (2003). RCW 9.94A.6333 pertains to sanctions, sentence modification, and noncompliance hearings. This section contemplates motions by the State or the court. RCW 9.94A.6333(2)(a). Indeed, the State bears the burden of proving noncompliance and, if so proven, "the court may modify its previous order regarding payment of legal financial obligations." RCW 9.94A.6333(2)(d).
Mr. Enlow's motion is different from the situation contemplated by our legislature in enacting RCW 9.94A.6333. Mr. Enlow requested the court terminate his financial obligation, but no allegation of noncompliance was first filed. The court, at a hearing in open court, inquired whether Mr. Enlow was employed and asked whether he had contacted the clerk's office. After he responded in the negative to both these inquiries, the court directed him to the clerk's office, an apparent Benton County procedure. This allowed the clerk's office to arrange a payment plan that fit Mr. Enlow's financial situation. Since this step had not been taken, the trial court had tenable grounds to deny Mr. Enlow's motion. There was no abuse of discretion.
Notably, Mr. Enlow has been reincarcerated; therefore, this appeal is moot. An appeal is moot when there is no effective relief this court can provide. State v. Turner, 98 Wn.2d 731, 733, 658 P.2d 658 (1983). "Mandatory Department of Corrections' deductions from inmate wages for repayment of legal financial obligations are not collection actions by the State requiring inquiry into a defendant's financial status." State v. Crook, 146 Wn. App. 24, 27-28, 189 P.3d 811 (2008), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1044 (2009). Even if we found error and remanded, the Department of Corrections would set the collection amount, not the court. And, because no enforcement action is before us, we have nothing to review. Thus, effective relief cannot be afforded.
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.
SWEENEY and KORSMO, JJ., concur.