State Of Washington, Respondent V. Edward Lee Fulton, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
CD
o
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
No. 69961-0- 	m 	^
CD 	O o
DIVISION ONE
3»
EDWARD FULTON, 	UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. 	FILED: 	February 10,2014
no
Per Curiam — Edward Fulton appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty pleas to reckless endangerment, attempting to elude a pursuing police
vehicle, second degree malicious mischief, and third degree malicious mischief.
He contends the court's boilerplate finding that he "has the present or likely future
ability to pay the legal financial obligations imposed" is not supported by the
record. 	He does not challenge the financial obligations imposed by the court—
i.e., the victim's penalty assessment and DNA collection fee—but instead seeks
only to strike the court's finding regarding his ability to pay. Because Fulton did
not raise this issue below, he is barred from raising it for the first time on appeal.
State v. Calvin. 176 Wn. App. 1, 302 P.3d 509 (2013).
Even ifthe argument could be raised, the challenged finding is immaterial
and thus provides no basis for relief. 	A trial court is not required to enter findings
regarding a defendant's ability to pay before it orders the defendant to pay
financial obligations. State v. Blank. 131 Wn.2d 230, 241-42, 930 P.2d 1213
(1997); State v. Curry. 118 Wn.2d 911, 916, 829 P.2d 166 (1992). The proper
time for findings "is the point of collection and when sanctions are sought for
nonpayment." Blank. 131 Wn.2d at 242; State v. Crook. 146 Wn. App. 24, 189
o—

P.3d 811 (2008). 	While sentencing courts must consider the defendant's
financial situation before imposing non-mandatory costs, see RCW 10.01.160(3),
State v. Baldwin. 63 Wn. App. 303, 308-12, 818 P.2d 1116 (1991), such
consideration is not necessary at sentencing when, as here, the financial
obligations imposed are mandatory. See e.g., State v. Thompson. 153 Wn. App.
325, 336-38, 223 P.3d 1165 (2009)(DNA fee is mandatory and imposed
regardless of hardship); State v. Williams. 65 Wn. App. 456, 460, 828 P.2d 1158
(1992)(victim penalty assessment "is mandatory and requires no consideration of
a defendant's ability to pay" at sentencing); Curry. 62 Wn. App. 676, 682-83, 814
P.2d 1252 (1991); RCW 43.43.690(1) ("the court shall levy a crime laboratory
analysis fee. . . ."). In these circumstances, the challenged finding is immaterial
surplusage and does not warrant relief. State v. Caldera. 66 Wn. App. 548, 551,
832P.2d 139(1992).
Fulton's pro se Statement of Additional Grounds for Review fails to
articulate any additional basis for relief.
Affirmed.