State Of Washington, Respondent V. Joshua D. Monson, Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, v. JOSHUA DALE MONSON, Appellant. No. 68149-4-I DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) ) ) FILED: December 31, 2012 Per Curiam. Joshua Monson appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He contends the court s boilerplate finding that he has the ability or likely future ability to pay the legal financial obligations imposed is not supported by the record and must be stricken. He does not challenge the financial obligations imposed by the court i.e. the victim s penalty assessment, crime lab fee, and DNA collection fee and he concedes that those obligations are mandatory. He seeks only to strike the court s finding regarding his ability to pay. Because the finding is immaterial, 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 Wn. App. 24, 189 P.3d 811 (2008). While sentencing courts must consider the No. 68149-4-I/2 defendant s financial situation before imposing non-mandatory costs, see RCW 10.01.160(3),1 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), review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1014 (2012), such consideration is not necessary at sentencing when, as here, the financial obligations imposed are mandatory. See e.g. 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; RCW 43.43.690(1) ( the court shall levy a crime laboratory analysis fee ). 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). Affirmed. For the court: 1 RCW 10.01.160(3) provides: 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. 2
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.
