State v. Catling
Summary of the case State v. Catling
In State v. Catling, the dissenting opinion argues that imposing legal financial obligations (LFOs) on individuals whose sole income is Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) is unlawful. The dissent highlights that such orders violate the anti-attachment provision of the Social Security Act and impose significant burdens on disabled individuals. The dissent criticizes the majority's view that LFOs can be imposed in a judgment and sentence, emphasizing the coercive effects and collateral consequences of unpaid LFOs on individuals with disabilities.
Key Issues of the case State v. Catling
- Imposition of LFOs on SSDI recipients
- Violation of anti-attachment provision of Social Security Act
Key Facts of the case State v. Catling
- Jason Catling relies solely on SSDI due to a debilitating condition.
- The dissent argues that imposing LFOs on SSDI recipients is unlawful.
Decision of the case State v. Catling
Not available
Opinions
FIUE IN CLERKS OFFICE This opinion was ^led for record ati l/lfi 7 15 State V. Catling No. 95794-1 GonzAlez,J.(dissenting)—As a result of Jason Catling's debilitating condition, he cannot work and relies on Social Security disability income(SSDI)to meet his most basic needs. Catling qualified for disability income more than 10 years ago and, given his medical condition, will likely remain on it for the rest of his life. As the majority properly recognizes, a court may not order someone to pay legal financial obligations(LFOs)out of SSDI.
Majority at 8; City ofRichland V. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d 596, 609, 380 P.3d 459(2016); 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The majority nonetheless concludes that a court may order that same individual to pay those same LFOs in a judgment and sentence. But a judgment and sentence is an order of the court, and when that order imposes an LFO on a person who has only SSDI, that order is unlawful.
See Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d at 609. I respectfully dissent. Plainly, it violates the antiattachment provision of the Social Security Act to order someone who has only SSDI to pay LFOs. Wakefield, 186 Wn.2d at 609; 42 State V. Catling, No. 95794-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) U.S.C. § 407(a). I see no distinction between imposing such an LFO in a judgment and sentence and directing payment by separate order.
For individuals whose sole income is SSDI, the burdensome and coercive effects of LFOs will all too often result in SSDI being used to satisfy them. Individuals with LFOs are subject to the varying demands ofthe courts and clerks' offices for check-ins in order to determine the individuals' ability to pay their outstanding debts. ROW 9.94A.760(8)(b); see also State v. Nason, 168 Wn.2d 936, 942, 233 P.3d 848 (2010)(requiring person to pay LFOs or automatically report to jail). We can no longer ignore the fact that unpaid and unpayable LFOs can impose significant burdens on people with LFOs and their families.
Tarra Simmons, Transcending the Stigma ofa Criminal Record: A Proposal to Reform State Bar Character and Fitness Evaluations, 128 Yale L.J. Forum 759, 761 (2019). This can have a lifetime effect. As recognized by the dissenting judge below,“[Bjecause of his disability, [Catling] abides trapped in an enduring legal process and he suffers other coercive consequences.”
See State v. Catling, 2 Wn. App. 2d 819, 845, 413 P.3d 27(2018)(Fearing, C.J., dissenting). Court clerks are often charged with collecting LFOs.
These clerks have the authority to summon individuals with LFOs to report before them and share their financial situation, including responding under oath to questions of the clerk and providing sufficient documentation. RCW 9.94A.760(5),(8)(b). As Catling State V. Catling, No. 95794-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) stresses, “Nothing in this statute limits the number oftimes the clerk can summon the debtor to the clerk's office.” Pet'r's Suppl.
Br. at 11. This imposition is particularly burdensome for Catling, who has a debilitating condition that leaves him in chronic pain. We should not ignore the heavy collateral consequences imposed by LFOs. LFOs act as “a lien on Catling's civil rights.” Catling, 2 Wn.
App. 2d at 845 (Fearing, C.J., dissenting). An individual cannot vacate their record until their LFO debt is satisfied and they receive a certificate of discharge, among other requirements.^ Collateral consequences “appear in a variety of contexts and take a variety offorms, including time-limited or lifetime bans on employment opportunities, professional licenses, public benefits, public or private housing, and financial aid or educational opportunities.” Simmons, 128 Yale L.J. Forum at 761.
Our citizens have a constitutional right to vote. See Brower v. State, 137 Wn.2d 44, 68, 969 P.2d 42(1998)(finding a fundamental right to vote under article I, section 19 ofthe Washington Constitution); see also Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62, 84 S.
Ct. 1362,12 L. Ed. 2d 506(1964)(finding a fundamental right to vote under the United States Constitution). This right is * RCW 9.94A.640(1)(allowing anyone discharged under RCW 9.94A.637 to apply to vacate their record of conviction),.637(1)(requiring payment of LFOs as a condition ofreceiving a certificate of discharge). State V.
Catling, No. 95794-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) limited as long as an order to pay LFOs is outstanding. RCW 29A.08.520. For those with a felony conviction, the right to vote cannot be permanently restored without a certificate of discharge or a certificate of restoration issued by the governor.^ Compromising the constitutional right to vote “leav[es] the most vulnerable without a voice to change the system in which they are entangled.” Simmons, 128 YaleL.J.Forum at 760. LFOs disproportionately affect disabled people who rely on SSDI. Without the ability to work, their LFOs will likely persist and continue to negatively affect their lives.
See id. Individuals with lifelong disabilities that prevent them from working may never be able to pay off their LFOs, resulting in a lifetime of hearings about ability to pay LFOs and the negative consequences of having a criminal record. See RCW 9.94A.760(8)(b). “Moreover, while many people with disabilities already face barriers to employment, stable housing, and other necessary elements of economic security, adding a criminal record into the mix can pose additional obstacles that make living with a disability an even greater challenge.” Rebecca Vallas,Ctr.for Am.Progress,Disabled Behind Bars: The Mass Incarceration of People with Disabilities in America's Jails and ^ RCW 29A.08.520(1)(provisional restoration of right to vote for those with felony conviction if not under authority of Department of Corrections),(2)(the provisional restoration of the right to vote can be revoked),(6)(right to vote may be permanently restored with, in relevant part, a certificate of discharge under RCW 9.94A.637 or a certificate of restoration by the governor under RCW 9.96.020).
State V. Catling, No. 95794-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) Prisons 3(2016), https://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/upIoads/2016/07/1800015 l/2CriminalJusticeDisability-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/GJ89-T7M8]. “[A] debt must be capable of being paid, if it is not instead a lifetime [yoke] of servitude.” Loretta E. Lynch, U.S.
Attorney General, Remarks at White House Convening on Incarceration and Poverty(Dec. 3, 2015) (https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-loretta-e-lynch-deliversremarks-white-house-convening-incarceration-and [https://perma.cc/XQ3T49PK]). The majority ignores the reality that an imposition of LFOs is an order to pay LFOs. I respectfully dissent. State V. Catling, No. 95794-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting)