GR 9 COVER SHEET
Suggested New General Rule (GR)
WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULES:
RULE 39. REMISSION OF LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
Submitted by Washington State LFO Stakeholder Consortium, Workgroup
_____________________________________________________________________
(A) Name of Proponent: Washington State LFO Stakeholder Consortium, Workgroup
(B) Spokesperson: Judge David Steiner
(C) Purpose: Trial courts may not impose discretionary costs upon an indigent defendant and may not impose discretionary costs upon a non-indigent defendant unless the defendant is able to pay those costs. RCW 10.01.160(3). When legal financial obligations (LFOs) in any form are imposed upon indigent defendants or imposed upon non-indigent defendants in an amount greater than the defendant’s ability to pay, these LFOs create problems that have been well documented. State v. Blazina , 182 Wn.2d 827, 834 – 837, 344 P.3d 680 (2015). LFOs may include court-imposed costs, fines, fees, penalties, assessments, and restitution. LFOs may have been imposed without an individualized inquiry into a defendant’s ability to pay, or a sentenced defendant may have lost the ability to pay LFOs ordered at the time of sentencing. State law currently requires that, upon motion by a defendant, following the defendant’s release from total confinement, the court shall waive all interest on the portions of the LFOs that have accrued that are not restitution. RCW 10.82.090. In addition, if default on payment of LFOs is not willful and the defendant is indigent as defined in RCW 10.101.010(3)(a) through (c), the court shall modify the terms of payment of the LFOs, reduce or waive nonrestitution legal financial obligations, or convert nonrestitution legal financial obligations to community restitution hours if the jurisdiction operates a community restitution program, at the rate of no less than the state minimum wage established in RCW 49.46.020 for each hour of community restitution . RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f). This proposed rule creates a process whereby a defendant may request remission or reduction of LFOs (except for restitution and victim penalty assessment). Defendants may also request removal of LFOs from collection, payment by other forms of community restitution and additional time to pay. This proposed rule cites to existing authority regarding the disposition of hearings related to the imposition of LFOs and does not create new authority directing the outcome of a petition requesting remission of LFOs. In drafting this proposed rule, consideration was given to the following authorities: GR 34; RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f); RCW 9.94A.780(7); RCW 9.94B.040(4)(f); RCW 10.01.160(3) & (4); RCW 10.01.170(1); RCW 10.01.180(5); RCW 10.101.010(3); RCW 10.82.090; RCW 36.18.016(29); State v. Blazina , 182 Wn.2d 827, 344 P.3d 680 (2015); State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d, 714 (2018).
The definition of an LFO within this proposed rule does not include clerk’s fees imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.780(7) and RCW 36.18.016(29). These clerk’s fees must not exceed the annual cost of collections and must never exceed $100 annually. A county clerk may also “exempt or defer payment of all or part of the assessment” based upon any of the factors listed in RCW 9.94A.780(1). RCW 9.94A.780(7).