State Of Washington, Respondent V. Gary Charles Neskey, Appellant (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATf OF WASHINGTON, No. 73011-8-1 o Respondent, CO UNPUBLISHED OPINION v. ST.' GARY CHARLES NESKEY, Appellant. FILED: July 18, 2016 ro a • Schindler, J. — For the first time on appeal, Gary Charles Neskey argues the mandatory deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fee statute is unconstitutional as applied to an indigent defendant and violates equal protection. We considered and rejected the same arguments in State v. Shelton, No. 72848-2-I, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 20, 2016)| and State v. Lewis, No. 72637-4-I, slip op. at 1(Wash. Ct. App. June 27, 2016). Neskey also argues the court erred in ordering him to submit another DNA sample. But Neskey does not show the court abused its discretion in ordering him to submit a DNA sample. Lewis, slip op. at 10-11. And because the statement of additional grounds does not inform us of the "nature and occurrence of[the] alleged errors," we do not consider it. RAP 10.10(c); No. 73011-8-1/2 State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008). We affirm the judgment and sentence. ^Q^WP.Eer WE CONCUR:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.