State Of Washington, Respondent V. Gerardo Jara-aguirre, Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. GERARDO JARA-AGUIRRE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 68060-9-I UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: October 29, 2012 Per Curiam Gerardo Jara-Aguirre appeals the sentence imposed following his convictions for felony harassment, violation of a domestic violence no contact order, and second degree assault. He contends the court s boilerplate finding that he has the present or likely future ability to pay the financial obligations imposed is not supported by the record and must be stricken. He does not challenge the mandatory financial obligations imposed by the court, i.e., the victim s penalty assessment and DNA collection fee. Rather, he seeks only to strike the finding regarding his ability to pay. We affirm. The trial court is not required to enter findings regarding a defendant's ability to pay before it orders the defendant to pay financial obligations. State v. Blank, 131 Wn.2d 230, 241-42, 930 P.2d 1213 (1997); State v. Curry, 118 Wn.2d 911, 916, 829 P.2d 166 (1992). The proper time for findings is the point of collection and when sanctions are sought for nonpayment. Blank, 131 Wn.2d at 241-42; State v. Crook, 146 No. 68060-9-I/2 Wn. App. 24, 189 P.3d 811 (2008). While sentencing courts must consider the defendant s financial situation before imposing non-mandatory costs, see RCW 10.01.160(3) ( The court shall not order a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or will be able to pay them. In determining the amount and method of payment of costs, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose. ), State v. Baldwin, 63 Wn. App. 303, 308-12, 818 P.2d 1116 (1991), State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393, 404, 267 P.3d 511 (2011), such consideration is not necessary at sentencing when, as here, the financial obligations imposed are mandatory DNA fees or victim penalty assessments. State v. Thompson, 153 Wn. App. 325, 336-338, 223 P.3d 1165 (2009) (DNA fee is mandatory and imposed regardless of hardship); State v. Williams, 65 Wn. App. 456, 460-61, 828 P.2d 1158 (1992) (victim penalty assessment is mandatory and requires no consideration of a defendant s ability to pay at sentencing); Curry, 62 Wn. App. at 682-83. In these circumstances, the challenged finding is immaterial and does not warrant relief. State v. Caldera, 66 Wn. App. 548, 551, 832 P.2d 139 (1992). Additional arguments raised by Jara-Aguirre in his statement of additional grounds for review involve matters outside the record and/or fail to demonstrate grounds for relief. Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: 2 No. 68060-9-I/3 3
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.
