State Of Washington, Respondent V. Leonard C. Hamilton, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 53927-6-II
Respondent,
v.
LEONARD CLINTON HAMILTON, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
LEE, C.J. — Leonard C. Hamilton appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea, arguing that the trial court improperly imposed an interest accrual provision on
nonrestitution legal financial obligations (LFOs) in his original judgment and sentence entered
after he pled guilty. Hamilton also requests remand for resentencing in light of State v. Blake.1
The State concedes that remand is appropriate.2
We accept the State’s concession that the imposition of an interest accrual provision for
nonrestitution LFOs was improper and that prior convictions for simple possession should not be
included in the calculation of Hamilton’s offender score. Therefore, we remand to the trial court
for resentencing.
FACTS
1 State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021).
2 The State argues that Hamilton’s appeal is untimely, but ultimately concedes that Hamilton is
correct that the judgment and sentence improperly included outdated boilerplate language
imposing interest on nonrestitution LFOs, and does not oppose remand to correct this error.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
June 22, 2021

No. 53927-6-II
2
On August 28, 2018, Leonard Hamilton pleaded guilty to one count of violation of a
domestic violence no contact order under RCW 26.50.110(5). Hamilton’s offender score also
included two prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance. On the same day, the trial
court imposed a Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative sentence and ordered Hamilton to 30
months of confinement and 30 months on community custody. The trial court further ordered
Hamilton to pay a $500 crime victim assessment fee and a $15 violation of a domestic violence
protection order fee, neither of which were restitution fees. The judgment and sentence stated,
“The financial obligations imposed in this judgment shall bear interest from the date of the
judgment until payment in full, at the rate applicable to civil judgments. RCW 10.82.090.” Clerks
Papers at 21.
On December 13, 2018, Hamilton moved to withdraw his guilty plea under CrR 7.8(b),
arguing that the trial court imposed a sentence based on a miscalculated offender score. On August
8, 2019, the trial court denied Hamilton’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Hamilton filed a
notice of appeal with this court on September 9, 2019. Hamilton later filed a motion for
supplemental briefing, which we accepted as a motion for reconsideration based on Blake.
ANALYSIS
Hamilton argues that “the court must modify Leonard Hamilton’s judgment and sentence
to eliminate interest accrual on the non-restitution legal financial obligations.” Br. of Appellant at
4. The State concedes that the provision in Hamilton’s judgment and sentence that orders interest
to accrue on all LFOs is in error. We agree.
RCW 10.82.090(1) states, “[R]estitution imposed in a judgment shall bear interest from
the date of the judgment until payment, at the rate applicable to civil judgments. As of June 7,

No. 53927-6-II
3
2018, no interest shall accrue on nonrestitution legal financial obligations.” We review the trial
court’s imposition of LFOs for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 741-42,
426 P.3d 714 (2018).
Here, Hamilton’s judgment and sentence was entered on August 28, 2018. Hamilton was
ordered to pay a $500 crime victim assessment fee and a $15 violation of a domestic violence
protection order fee, both of which are nonrestitution LFOs. Because the judgment and sentence
was entered after June 7, 2018, and Hamilton was ordered to pay interest accrual on nonrestitution
LFOs, the trial court erred. RCW 10.82.090(1).
Hamilton’s offender score included two convictions for possession of a controlled
substance. “[A] prior conviction which has been previously determined to have been
unconstitutionally obtained or which is constitutionally invalid on its face may not be considered”
as part of a defendant’s offender score. State v. Ammons, 105 Wn.2d 175, 187-88, 713 P.2d 719,
as amended by 105 Wn.2d 175 (1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 930 (1986). In Blake, our Supreme
Court held that RCW 69.50.4013(1), the statute criminalizing simple possession, is
unconstitutional. 197 Wn.2d at 186. Therefore, the statute is void. Id. at 195. Because RCW
69.50.4013(1) is void, Hamilton’s prior convictions for simple possession are unconstitutional on
their face and should not be included in Hamilton’s offender score.
We remand to the trial court for resentencing under Blake. Hamilton’s judgment and
sentence should not include any interest accrual provision for nonrestitution LFOs from
Hamilton’s judgment and sentence.

No. 53927-6-II
4
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.
Lee, C.J.
We concur:
Worswick, J.
Veljacic, J.