Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160 (2026)

Court fees and costs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The court of appeals, supreme court, and superior courts may require an adult offender convicted of an offense to pay appellate costs.
(2) Appellate costs are limited to expenses specifically incurred by the state in prosecuting or defending an appeal or collateral attack from a criminal conviction. Appellate costs shall not include expenditures to maintain and operate government agencies that must be made irrespective of specific violations of the law. Expenses incurred for producing a verbatim report of proceedings and clerk's papers may be included in costs the court may require a convicted defendant to pay.
(3) Costs, including recoupment of fees for court-appointed counsel, shall be requested in accordance with the procedures contained in Title 14 of the rules of appellate procedure and in Title 9 of the rules for appeal of decisions of courts of limited jurisdiction. An award of costs shall become part of the trial court judgment and sentence.
(4) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay costs and who has not willfully failed to pay the obligation, as described in RCW 9.94A.6333, 9.94B.040, and 10.01.180, may at any time petition the court that sentenced the defendant or juvenile offender for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion. If it appears to the satisfaction of the sentencing court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant's immediate family, the sentencing court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, modify the method of payment under RCW 10.01.170, or convert the unpaid costs to community restitution hours, if the jurisdiction operates a community restitution program, at the rate of no less than the state minimum wage established in RCW 49.46.020 for each hour of community restitution. Manifest hardship exists where the defendant or juvenile offender is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3).
(5) The parents or another person legally obligated to support a juvenile offender who has been ordered to pay appellate costs and who is not in contumacious default in the payment may at any time petition the court that sentenced the juvenile offender for remission of the payment of costs or of any unpaid portion. If it appears to the satisfaction of the sentencing court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the parents or another person legally obligated to support a juvenile offender or on their immediate families, the sentencing court may remit all or part of the amount due in costs, or may modify the method of payment.
[ 2022 c 260 s 10; 2018 c 269 s 12; 2015 c 265 s 22; 1995 c 275 s 3.]

Notes:

Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Construction—2018 c 269: See note following RCW 10.82.090.
Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Finding—Severability—1995 c 275: See notes following RCW 10.73.150.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 190 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 59× “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 58× “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alan J. Sinclair Ii, App.27, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “¶20 The problem with the State’s argument is that it requires this court to refrain from exercising the discretion that we indisputably possess under RCW 10.73.160 and Nolan. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, our Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that the broad…”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 28× “— We determine in this case if RCW 10.73.160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant’s appeal is frivolous.”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 27× “160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant's appeal is frivolous. We hold RCW 10.73.160 is not confined to…”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Joseph Leif Wolf, 384 P.3d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “it was filed more than one year after the LFOs were imposed in 2008 and the trial court’s revocation of the SSOSA in 2012 had nothing to do with LFOs, and (2) the imposition of appellate costs without assessing Wolf’s ability to pay was not unlawful because courts are not…”
State v. Mahone, 989 P.2d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “In addition, this court questioned whether the trial court’s ruling on a motion for remission of costs under RCW 10.73.160 is subject to appeal as a matter of right.”
State v. Nolan, 988 P.2d 473 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 21× “Thomas Robertson Nolan asks us to modify the ruling of a commissioner of this court awarding *77 costs to the State as authorized by RCW 10.73.160, Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and State v.”
State Of Washington v. Spencer D. Grant, 385 P.3d 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “Standard of Review/Legal Principles ¶4 Under RCW 10.73.160(1), appellate courts “ ‘may require an adult offender convicted of an offense to pay appellate costs.”
State Of Washington, V Wyatt Taylor Seward, 384 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 10.73.160(1).9 We affirm the imposition of the mandatory LFOs and waive appellate costs.”
State Of Washington v. Jason Shirts, 195 Wash. App. 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “¶13 In Mahone , the court considered whether the superior court’s denial of Mahone’s motion to remit under a nearly identical statute, RCW 10.73.160(4), 4 was appeal-able as a matter of right.”
State v. Ramirez, 426 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2018). “CONCLUSION ¶ 37 In Blazina , we held that under former RCW 10.73.160(3), trial courts have an obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay discretionary LFOs before imposing them at sentencing.”
Show all 190 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160(1) — 136 cases
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “— We determine in this case if RCW 10.73.160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant’s appeal is frivolous.”
State Of Washington, V Wyatt Taylor Seward, 384 P.3d 620 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 10.73.160(1).9 We affirm the imposition of the mandatory LFOs and waive appellate costs.”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant's appeal is frivolous. We hold RCW 10.73.160 is not confined to…”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alan J. Sinclair Ii, App.27, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶20 The problem with the State’s argument is that it requires this court to refrain from exercising the discretion that we indisputably possess under RCW 10.73.160 and Nolan. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, our Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that the broad…”
State Of Washington v. Spencer D. Grant, 385 P.3d 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Standard of Review/Legal Principles ¶4 Under RCW 10.73.160(1), appellate courts “ ‘may require an adult offender convicted of an offense to pay appellate costs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160(1995) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Terry Joel Caver, 381 P.3d 191 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160(2) — 14 cases
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “— We determine in this case if RCW 10.73.160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant’s appeal is frivolous.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Nolan, 8 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2000). “160, which authorizes recovery from an unsuccessful appellant the costs for publicly paid appellate counsel under Title 14 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, is confined to cases where the criminal defendant's appeal is frivolous. We hold RCW 10.73.160 is not confined to…”
State v. Ashby, 141 Wash. App. 549 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160(3) — 18 cases
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alan J. Sinclair Ii, App.27, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶20 The problem with the State’s argument is that it requires this court to refrain from exercising the discretion that we indisputably possess under RCW 10.73.160 and Nolan. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, our Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that the broad…”
State v. Ramirez, 426 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2018). “CONCLUSION ¶ 37 In Blazina , we held that under former RCW 10.73.160(3), trial courts have an obligation to conduct an individualized inquiry into a defendant's current and future ability to pay discretionary LFOs before imposing them at sentencing.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Mahone, 989 P.2d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “In addition, this court questioned whether the trial court’s ruling on a motion for remission of costs under RCW 10.73.160 is subject to appeal as a matter of right.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.160(4) — 27 cases
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Alan J. Sinclair Ii, App.27, 367 P.3d 612 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶20 The problem with the State’s argument is that it requires this court to refrain from exercising the discretion that we indisputably possess under RCW 10.73.160 and Nolan. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, our Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that the broad…”
State Of Washington v. Jason Shirts, 195 Wash. App. 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “¶13 In Mahone , the court considered whether the superior court’s denial of Mahone’s motion to remit under a nearly identical statute, RCW 10.73.160(4), 4 was appeal-able as a matter of right.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). “Defendants Blank and LeBlanc raise numerous challenges to the constitutionality of RCW 10.73.160, which allows an appellate court to order convicted indigent defendants to pay appellate costs, including the fees for appointed counsel.”
State v. Mahone, 989 P.2d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “In addition, this court questioned whether the trial court’s ruling on a motion for remission of costs under RCW 10.73.160 is subject to appeal as a matter of right.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.