In a pair of cases decided in October 2024, the Court of Appeals of Washington held that defendants are not entitled to reimbursement for community service work that they performed in lieu of paying cash to satisfy legal financial obligations related to their convictions—once those convictions are vacated.

Simone R. Nelson and Sabra Danielson were each convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1). Both were ordered to pay legal financial obligations (LFOs) as part of their sentences. Both then satisfied this obligation either in whole or in part by performing community service work in lieu of making cash payments.

The community service work was performed at various non-profit organizations, such as food banks or homeless outreach centers. But in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 69.50.4013(1) violates due process and is facially unconstitutional. See: State v. Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170 (2021); reconsideration denied by State v. Blake, 2021 Wash. LEXIS 767 (2021) (Unpublished). As PLN reported, that decision rendered unlawful every possession conviction under the statute. [See: PLN, May 2024, p.37.]

Nelson and Danielson both filed motions in the trial court to vacate their unlawful possession convictions, and they further requested reimbursement for the community service work they performed to pay down the LFOs improperly assessed against them. The trial courts vacated their convictions and ordered the clerk to refund any money they had paid in cash, but the courts refused to reimburse them for the community service work. Both appealed.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court first held that Criminal Rule 7.8(b), not a civil action, is the sole remedy for seeking reimbursement of monies paid in connection with vacated convictions. The court also agreed that defendants are entitled to reimbursement of any cash payments made to satisfy LFOs imposed as part of sentences for overturned convictions, as held in Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. 128 (2017. But that did not make them entitled to monetary compensation for community service work performed in lieu of cash payments, the Court said.

First, the tort of unjust enrichment did not obligate the State to reimburse either defendant for the community service work they performed because the work had “no direct benefit to the State.” While the work certainly benefited the community at large and provided both defendants a way to satisfy their LFOs in lieu of making cash payments, the State itself saw no benefit from their labors and therefore was not unjustly enriched by it, the Court decided.

Moreover, refusal to reimburse the defendants for the community service work did not violate either substantive due process or equal protection, the Court continued. Substantive due process was not violated because the defendants do not have “a fundamental right to repayment of money for community service performed in lieu of paying LFOs,” the Court said. And equal protection was also not violated because “there is a rational relationship between providing reimbursement for LFO payments and limiting the flow of reimbursement claims only to those Blake defendants who satisfied their LFOs with definable monetary payments received by the State,” the Court opined.

Accordingly, the trial court orders in both cases were affirmed. See: State v. Nelson, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 2185 (Oct. 29, 2024) (Published); State v. Danielson, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 2138 (Oct. 22, 2024) (Unpublished).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login