State Of Washington, Respondent V. Margaret Wilson, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 51605-5-II
Respondent,
v.
MARGARET ANN WILSON,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
WORSWICK, J. — Margaret Wilson appeals the trial court’s imposition of legal financial
obligations (LFOs), interest accrual, and payment conditions for the LFOs arising from her
felony convictions. Wilson argues that the LFOs, interest on nonrestitution LFOs, and
conditions of payment are not authorized after the enactment of Engrossed Second Substitute
House Bill (ESHB) 1783. The State concedes that the trial court should strike the discretionary
LFOs, but does not address the other LFOs, interest, or conditions of payment. We accept the
State’s concession, and remand to the trial court to strike the criminal filing fee, jury demand fee,
and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection fee, and to address the interest accrual and the
payment conditions.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
April 30, 2019

No. 51605-5-II
2
FACTS
Wilson was convicted of two counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. As
part of Wilson’s sentence, the court imposed a $200 criminal filing fee, $250 jury demand fee,
and a $100 DNA collection fee. The trial court also set the conditions that the financial
obligations “shall bear interest from the date of the judgment until payment in full,” and that
Wilson begin making LFO payments immediately. Clerk’s Papers at 87. The trial court also
entered an order of indigency for Wilson. Wilson’s criminal history includes a prior felony
conviction. Wilson appeals the imposition of the criminal filing fee, the jury demand fee, and
the DNA collection fee, the interest accrual on nonrestitution LFOs, and the payment terms.
ANALYSIS
Relying on State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 747, 426 P.3d 714 (2018), Wilson argues
that the criminal filing fee, jury demand fee, DNA collection fee, interest accrual, and payment
terms that the trial court imposed on Wilson are no longer authorized after the enactment of
ESHB 1783. The State concedes that the trial court should strike the discretionary LFOs. We
agree with Wilson, and remand to the trial court to strike the criminal filing fee, jury demand fee,
and DNA collection fee, and to address the interest accrual on nonrestitution LFOs and the
conditions of payment for the LFOs.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
ESHB 1783 modified Washington’s system of LFOs and amended RCW 10.01.160(3) to
prohibit trial courts from imposing criminal filing fees, jury demand fees, and discretionary
LFOs on indigent defendants. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, §§ 6, 9, 17. The amendments to the LFO
statutes apply prospectively to cases that are on appeal. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d at 747.

No. 51605-5-II
3
A. Discretionary LFOs
1. Criminal Filing Fee and Jury Demand Fee
Wilson argues that the trial court should strike the criminal filing fee and jury demand
fee. The State concedes that the criminal filing fee and jury demand fee should be stricken. We
accept the State’s concession.
ESHB 1783 amended RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) and RCW 10.46.190 to prohibit trial courts
from imposing the $200 criminal filing fee and $250 jury demand fee on indigent defendants.
LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, §§ 9, 17.
Here, the trial court signed an order of indigency for Wilson. Because Wilson is indigent,
the criminal filing fee and jury demand fee are no longer authorized. RCW 36.18.020(2)(h);
RCW 10.46.190. Thus, we remand to the trial court to strike the criminal filing fee and jury
demand fee.
2. DNA collection fee
Wilson argues that the trial court should strike the DNA collection fee. The State
concedes that the DNA fee should be stricken. We accept the State’s concession.
Trial courts are prohibited from imposing non-mandatory LFOs on indigent defendants.
RCW 10.01.160(3). ESHB 1783 amended RCW 43.43.7541 to make a DNA collection fee
nonmandatory if “the state has previously collected the offender’s DNA as a result of a prior
conviction.” LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 18.
Here, it is uncontested that Wilson is indigent and that she has a prior felony conviction.
Based on the State’s concession that the DNA collection fee should be waived, we assume that
Wilson’s DNA was previously collected. Because the DNA was previously collected, the

No. 51605-5-II
4
collection fee is no longer authorized. Thus, we remand to the trial court to strike the DNA
collection fee.
3. Interest Payments
Wilson argues that the trial court should strike the interest accrual on the criminal filing
fee, jury demand fee, and DNA collection fee. We agree, and remand to the trial court to strike
interest on all nonrestitution LFOs.
ESHB 1783 amended RCW 10.82.090 to prohibit interest accrual on nonrestitution
LFOs. LAWS OF 2018, ch. 269, § 1. Thus, we remand to the trial court to strike any interest that
accrued on nonrestitution LFOs.
B. Payment Terms
Wilson also asks this court to strike the condition that payment of LFOs start
immediately. Because we remand this case to the trial court to strike and reconsider Wilson’s
LFO’s on remand, the trial court should also determine the terms of payment for the remaining
LFOs.
II. Conclusion
In conclusion, we remand to the trial court to strike the criminal filing fee, jury demand
fee, and DNA collection fee consistent with Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 747. We remand to the trial
court to address the accrued interest on nonrestitution LFOs and the payment conditions for the
LFOs.

No. 51605-5-II
5
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Worswick, J.
We concur:
Maxa, C.J.
Melnick, J.