State v. Kuster

Siddoway, A.C.J.

¶1 Louis Kuster challenges two terms of the sentence imposed for his conviction of second degree rape: a restriction on any access to pornography and what he characterizes as an implicit finding that he has the *422ability to pay $800 in legal financial obligations (LFOs), which he contends is unsupported by the record.

¶2 The State concedes that the pornography restriction is unconstitutionally vague in light of State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739, 193 P.3d 678 (2008), a concession we accept. We conclude that the LFOs at issue are largely mandatory fees, as to which Mr. Kuster’s…