State Of Washington, Respondent V. Treyshawn Donovan Hilton, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 57568-0-II
Respondent,
v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
TREYSHAWN DONOVAN HILTON,
Appellant.
CHE, J.⎯A jury convicted Treyshawn Donovan Hilton of custodial assault. Hilton
appeals the imposition of community custody supervision fees. He argues, and the State
concedes, that recent statutory amendments removed sentencing courts’ authorization to impose
community custody supervision fees. We accept the State’s concession and remand for the trial
court to strike the community custody supervision fees from Hilton’s judgment and sentence.
The State charged Treyshawn Donovan Hilton with one count of custodial assault and a
jury found him guilty. On June 17, 2022, the trial court imposed a low-end standard range
sentence of three months. The trial court found Hilton indigent and stated that it would impose
only mandatory legal financial obligations. However, the judgment and sentence contained
boilerplate language ordering Hilton to “pay supervision fees as determined by DOC.” Clerk’s
Papers at 36. Hilton filed a notice of appeal to this court that same day.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
June 13, 2023

No. 57568-0-II
2
RCW 9.94A.703 contains mandatory, waivable, discretionary, and other special
community custody conditions trial courts could impose on criminal defendants. Shortly before
Hilton’s sentencing, the statute stated that “[u]nless waived by the court, as part of any term of
community custody, the court shall order an offender to . . . [p]ay supervision fees as determined
by the department.” Former RCW 9.94A.704(2)(d) (2021). The legislature removed that
provision from the statute, effective June 9, 2022. LAWS OF 2022, ch. 29 § 7. By the date of
Hilton’s sentencing, trial courts no longer had authority to impose supervision fees as part of a
term of community custody.
Thus, we must remand for the trial court to strike the community custody supervision
fees.
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.
Che, J.
We concur:
Lee, J.
Glasgow, C.J.