State Of Washington, Respondent V. Mauricio T. Paige-colter, Appellant

E	
0 OF AP ip
EAL.S
01 V1 S 10,14, 11
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATEW`WASH . 1%
STA1'E OF WASIrMiGTOM
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 4290
1 7 1
Respondent, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
V.
MAURICIO TERRENCE PAIGE -COLTER,
MORGEN, J. —Mauricio Paige -Colter appeals from his judgment and sentence, arguing
that the trial court erred in finding that he had the present or likely future ability to pay legal
financial obligations. In a statement of additional grounds, he contends that his victim has
recanted her testimony against him and that he should receive a new trial. We affirm.
On November 29, 2011, a jury found Paige -Colter guilty of first degree assault and first
degree unlawful possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the following
legal financial obligations requested by the State: $500 victim assessment, $200 criminal filing
fee, $100 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection fee, and $1,	500 Department of Assigned
Counsel (DAC)recoupment fee. The court made the following finding:
The court has considered the total amount owing, the [defendant's]	past,
present and future ability to pay legal financial obligations, including the
defendant's financial resources and the likelihood that the defendant's status will
change. The court finds that the defendant has the ability or likely future ability
to pay the legal financial obligations imposed herein.
Clerk's Papers at 74.
1 A commissioner of this court initially considered this appeal as a motion on the merits under
RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel ofjudges.

No. 42904 -7 -	II
Paige -Colter argues that the trial court erred in finding that he had the current or likely future
ability to pay the legal financial obligations imposed by the court because nothing in the record
supported that finding. State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. 393, 404, 267 P.3d 511 (2011),review
denied, 175 Wn.2d 1024 (2012).Before making such a finding, the trial court must "` [take] into
account [the] financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden "' imposed by the
legal financial obligations. Bertrand, 165 Wn. App. at 404 (quoting State v. Baldwin, 63 Wn.
App. 303, 312, 818 P.2d 1116, 837 P.2d 646 (1991)).
But Bertrand did not address which, if any, of the legal financial obligations that the trial
court imposed were mandatory. A $500 victim assessment is required by RCW 7.	68.	035,
irrespective of the defendant's ability to pay. State v. Curry, 62 Wn. App. 676, 680, 814 P.2d
1252 (1991).A $100 DNA collection fee is required by RCW 43.	43.	7541,irrespective of the
defendant's ability to pay. State v. Thompson, 153 Wn. App. 325, 336, 223 P.3d 1165 (2009).A
200 criminal filing fee is required by RCW 36.	18.	020(	2)(	h).	Because these legal financial
obligations were mandatory, the trial court's finding of Paige -Colter's current or likely future
ability to pay them is surplusage.
The only discretionary legal financial obligation imposed was the $1,	500 DAC
recoupment fee. Paige -Colter did not object at his sentencing to the finding of his current or
likely future ability to pay his legal financial obligations. Consistent with our recent decision in
State v. Blazina, No. 42728 -1 -II,2013 WL 2217206 (Wash. Ct. App. May 21, 2013) and RAP
2.	5(	a),	we decline to allow Paige -Coulter to challenge that finding for the first time in this
appeal.
Paige -Colter filed a statement of additional grounds that appends an affidavit from the
victim recanting her testimony that Paige -Colter shot her. From this, Paige -Coulter argues that
2

No. 42904 -7 -	II
he should be given a new trial or evidentiary hearing on the recantation or that charges should be
dismissed.
By its nature, a claim of recantation should be raised in the trial court under CrR 7.5 or
7.8, because the credibility of the recantation must be judicially evaluated, and this court is
poorly suited to make such an evaluation. The record does not show that a motion for a new trial
was made under CrR 7.5. Any claim based on the alleged recantation, therefore, should be
raised through a motion under CrR 7.8, if its requirements are met. For this reason, we deny
Paige -Colter's request to us for a new trial,evidentiary hearing, or dismissal.
We affirm.
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.
We concur:
L,	L.
VAN DEREN, J.
fk t
8JRA
3