Legal Opinion

State v. Mathers

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 10, 2016No. 47523-5-IIPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMelnick, J.

¶1

To an indigent defendant saddled with legal financial obligations (LFOs), it does not matter if the LFOs are labeled mandatory or discretionary. The effects on the indigent defendant remain the same. However, until there are legislative amendments or Supreme Court changes in precedent, we must recognize these distinctions and adhere to the principles of stare decisis.

¶2 Andrew Mathers appeals from the trial court’s imposition of mandatory LFOs. He argues that the trial court’s failure to inquire into his particular ability to pay a $100 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fee and a $500 Victim…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Baxstrom v. HeroldSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. State v. BlazinaWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  4. In re the Detention of TurayWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. In re the Detention of ThorellWashington Supreme Court · 2003

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. GloverCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  2. State Of Washington, V Wyatt Taylor SewardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  3. State Of Washington v. Manuel GonzalesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  4. State Of Washington v. Karen A. ConwayCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  5. State Of Washington v. Frederick Kenneth Hill, IiiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API