State Of Washington, Resp. V. Christapher White, App. (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 73403-2COf-;- Respondent, ^cr cr\ 33- —-K "" _' cr zn m v. i ^£t™ '-r-. i- CHRISTAPHER WHITE, Appellant. UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: August 1,2016 C/>f*Tf ' pr Ot.o CO C/1 -H f-, o Verellen, C.J. — For the first time on appeal, Christapher White argues that as applied to an indigent defendant, imposition of the mandatory deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fee under RCW 43.43.7541 violates substantive due process.1 In State v. Shelton, we considered and rejected the same argument.2 We held that until the State attempts to enforce collection of the DNA fee or impose sanctions for failure to pay, the claim is not ripe for judicial review and is not an error of constitutional magnitude subject to review under RAP 2.5(a)(3).3 We also held that "unlike discretionary legal financial obligations, the legislature unequivocally requires imposition of the mandatory DNA fee 1A jury convicted White of one count of assault in the second degree, two counts of rape in the second degree, and one count of unlawful imprisonment. 2 No. 72848-2-I, 2016 WL 3461164, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. June 20, 2016). 3 Id. at *4. — No. 73403-2-1/2 ... at sentencing without regard to finding the ability to pay."4 We adhere to our decision in Shelton. Because the numerous issues listed in the statement of additional grounds do not inform us of the "nature and occurrence of the alleged errors," we cannot review them.5 Some of those issues were already considered and rejected by this court in White's direct appeal.6 Any of those issues remaining that involve facts and evidence not in the record on appeal are properly raised through a personal restraint petition, not a statement of additional grounds.7 We affirm the judgment and sentence. WE CONCUR: 1 A^/Wyw. V 4 |d, at *6. 5 State v. Alvarado. 164 Wn.2d 556, 569, 192 P.3d 345 (2008) (citing RAP 10.10(c)). 6 State v. White, noted at 184 Wn. App. 1025, at *9-10 & 12 n.15 (2014). 7 Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d at 569.
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.
