# State v. Lundy

> Court of Appeals of Washington · August 13, 2013 · 176 Wash. App. 96

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4761922

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington v. John Matthew Lundy
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Washington
- **Decided:** August 13, 2013
- **Citations:** 176 Wash. App. 96; 308 P.3d 755
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johanson
- **Judges:** Brintnall, Hunt, Johanson, Quinn
- **Cited by:** 192 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4761922

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the legislature expressly directed that an ability to pay analysis not be considered when imposing victim restitution, victim assessment fees, DNA fees, and criminal filing fees
- holding that the legislature divested sentencing courts of the discretion to impose the mandatory LFOs of “victim restitution, victim assessments, DNA fees, and criminal filing fees”
- holding that the filing fee imposed by RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) is mandatory and courts have no discretion to consider the offender's ability to pay
- noting that, for these costs, "the legislature has directed expressly that a defendant's ability to pay should not be taken into account"

## Opinion text

Johanson, A.C.J.
¶23 (concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion but write separately regarding Lundy’s legal financial obligation (LFO) challenge because I would follow our analysis in State v. Blazina, 174 Wn. App. 906 , 301 P.3d 492 (2013), petition for review filed, No. 89028-5 (Wash. July 8, 2013). I would decline to reach the merits of the LFO issue because Lundy did not object when the trial court found that Lundy had a present or future ability to pay LFOs and when the trial court imposed the LFOs. Accordingly, I would hold that Lundy did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review. RAP 2.5(a).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4761922. Public record. Not legal advice.