State Of Washington, Respondent V. Martin Pang, Appellant

?ns^ fiPR 13 	AH 8: ho
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MARTIN PANG,
Appellant.
No. 70442-7-
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FILED: 	April 13, 2015
Per Curiam — Martin Pang appeals an order denying his motion to terminate
the legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed following his 1998 guilty pleas to four
counts of manslaughter. 	He contends the initial ten-year collection period for the
LFOs expired when it was not extended in 2008. 	The State argues, and the superior
court ruled, that Pang's initial ten-year collection period does not commence until he
is released from total confinement. 	We agree and affirm.
For purposes of collecting restitution, RCW 9.94A.753(4) provides that an
offender
shall remain under the court's jurisdiction for a term of ten years
following the offender's release from total confinement or ten years
subsequent to the entry of the judgment and sentence, whichever
period ends later. 	Prior to the expiration of the initial ten-year period,
the superior court may extend jurisdiction under the criminal judgment
an additional ten years for payment of restitution.
Virtually identical statutory language applies to the collection of other legal financial
obligations. 	RCW 9.94A.760(4).

No. 70442-7-1/2
In 1998, the trial court ordered Pang to pay various costs, assessments, and
restitution. 	He has been continuously incarcerated since his sentencing.
Accordingly, under RCW 9.94A.753(4) and 9.94A.760(4), his initial ten-year collection
period has not yet commenced. 	The fact that the superior court mistakenly notified
Pang in 2007 that it intended to extend the initial collection period and then failed to
do so is of no moment. 	The initial ten-year period will not commence until Pang is
released from total confinement.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT: