State v. Tolman

Full title: State of Washington, Petitioner, v. Anthony Joshua Tolman, Respondent.

Court: Supreme Court of Washington.

Date published: Sep 28, 2016

186 Wn. 2d 1008 (Wash. 2016)

186 Wn. 2d 1008

186 Wash. 2d 1008

Opinion

No. 92814–2

09-28-2016

State of Washington, Petitioner, v. Anthony Joshua Tolman, Respondent.

Madsen, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

¶1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Owens, Stephens, González and Yu, considered at its September 27, 2016, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b). With regard to the legal financial obligation issue raised in the cross-petition, the Department unanimously agreed that the superior court in imposing discretionary legal financial obligations on the Petitioner in connection with his criminal conviction did not adequately address his present and future ability to pay based on consideration of his financial resources and the nature of the burden that the payment of discretionary costs would impose, as required by RCW 10.01.160(3) and this court's decision in State of Washington v. Nicholas Peter Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). Pursuant to that decision, the superior court must conduct on the record an individualized inquiry into the Petitioner's current and future ability to pay in light of such nonexclusive factors as the circumstances of his incarceration and his other debts, including nondiscretionary legal financial obligations, and the factors for determining indigency status under GR 34. With regard to both the petition and the cross-petition, the Department unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶3 That the Petition for Review is granted, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals Division II for reconsideration in light of State v. Clifford Melvin Porter, Jr. , 186 Wn.2d 85 (2016). The Respondent's cross-petition is granted only on the issue of the imposition of discretionary legal financial obligations. After reconsidering the case, the Court of Appeals is directed to remand the case ,if appropriate, to the superior court to reconsider the imposition of discretionary legal financial obligations consistent with the requirements of State of Washington v. Nicholas Peter Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015).

For the Court

/s/ Madsen, C.J.

CHIEF JUSTICE