State v. Blazina
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, C.J.
¶1 At sentencing, judges ordered Nicholas Blazina and Mauricio Paige-Colter to pay discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) under RCW 10.01.160(3). The records do not show that the trial judges considered either defendant’s ability to pay before imposing the LFOs. Neither defendant objected at the time. For the first time on appeal, however, both argued that a trial judge must make an individualized inquiry into a defendant’s ability to pay and that the judges’ failure to make this inquiry warranted resentencing. Citing RAP 2.5, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue because…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. FordWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. BahlWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. BahlWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Roberson v. PerezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Roberson v. PerezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by248 opinions
- State v. RamirezWashington Supreme Court · 2018
- State of Washington v. Joshua James ClarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz RiveraCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- State v. DuncanWashington Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. GrottWashington Supreme Court · 2020
243 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.