State v. Hill

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Hill

438 P.3d 115, 193 Wash. 2d 1002

Washington Supreme Court·Decided April 3, 2019·No. No. 96750-4·Published

Opinion

¶ 1 Department I of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Johnson, Owens, Wiggins and Gordon McCloud, considered at its April 2, 2019, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b) and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the petition for review is granted on the DNA collection fee issue only. In light of this Court's decision in State of Washington v. David Angel Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018), and the 2018 amendment to the legal financial obligations statutes, this case is remanded to the trial court to reconsider the imposition of the requirement to pay the DNA fee.

For the Court

/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¶ 1 Department I of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Johnson, Owens, Wiggins and Gordon McCloud, considered at its April 2, 2019, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b) and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the petition for review is granted on the DNA collection fee issue only. In light of this Court's decision in State of Washington v. David Angel Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (2018), and the 2018 amendment to the legal financial obligations statutes, this case is remanded to the trial court to reconsider the imposition of the requirement to pay the DNA fee.

For the Court

/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

State v. Hill, 438 P.3d 115, 193 Wash. 2d 1002 (Wash. 2019).

Pincite

438 P.3d 115 (State v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related