Washington v. Blazina (Majority and Concurrence)
Annotate this CasePetitioners Nicholas Blazina and Mauricio Paige-Colter were ordered to pay discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs). The trial court record in each petitioner's case did not reflect that the trial judges considered either party's ability to pay before imposing the LFOs. Neither petitioner objected at the time. For the first time on appeal, however, both argued that the judges in their respective cases should have made an inquiry into their ability to pay, and that failing to make this inquiry warranted resentencing. The Court of Appeals declined to reach the issue because both petitioners failed to object at sentencing, and therefore failed to preserve the issue for appeal. Petitioners appealed the Court of Appeals' and trial courts' rulings to the Supreme Court, and in each case, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in declining to reach the merits. However, exercising its own discretion, the Supreme Court reached the merits and held that the trial court had a statutory obligation to make an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay before the imposition of LFOs. The cases were remanded for the trial courts to make these inquiries.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.