State Of Washington, Respondent V. Amber Kay Elliott, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
AMBER KAY ELLIOTT,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 80953-9-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PER CURIAM — Amber Elliott appeals the judgment and sentence
imposed following her conviction for first degree identity theft. She contends that
the trial court waived all discretionary legal financial obligations, but that the
judgment and sentence erroneously requires her to pay the costs of supervision
by the Department of Corrections. The State concedes that this condition should
be stricken because the sentencing court clearly intended to impose only
mandatory legal financial obligations. See State v. Dillon, 12 Wn. App. 2d 133,
152, 456 P.3d 1199 (2020) (striking DOC supervision fee where “[t]he record
demonstrate[d] that the trial court intended to impose only mandatory LFOs”).
Elliott also contends, and the State concedes, that the judgment and sentence
must specify that any funds subject to the Social Security Act's anti-attachment
statute, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), may not be used to satisfy her legal financial
obligations.

No. 80953-9-I/2
2
We accept the State’s concessions, and remand to the trial court to strike
the supervision fee and amend the judgment to reflect that legal financial
obligations may not be satisfied from Elliott’s social security benefits.
FOR THE COURT: