Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.777 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Before imposing any legal financial obligations upon a defendant who suffers from a mental health condition, other than restitution, a judge must first determine that the defendant, under the terms of this section, has the means to pay such additional sums.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant suffers from a mental health condition when the defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that prevents the defendant from participating in gainful employment, as evidenced by a determination of mental disability as the basis for the defendant's enrollment in a public assistance program, a record of involuntary hospitalization, or by competent expert evaluation.
[ 2022 c 260 s 24; 2010 c 280 s 6.]

Notes:

Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2015–2022 · leading case: State v. Tedder, 378 P.3d 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tedder, 378 P.3d 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “RCW 9.94A.777. ¶10 Here, as evidenced by his numerous involuntary hospitalizations and treatment in mental health court, *757 Tedder clearly suffers from a mental health condition as defined under RCW 9.”
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Catling, 413 P.3d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “He also argues that the court erred in not considering whether his mental disability required remission of some of his LFOs under RCW 9.94A.777. We consider those contentions in the order listed.”
State Of Washington v. Anthony G. Houck, 446 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “51201-7-II On remand, if the trial court finds that the State has not previously collected Houck’s DNA, the trial court must then consider whether the DNA collection fee should be waived after performing the necessary inquiry under RCW 9.94A.777. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial…”
State v. Catling, 438 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2019). “1 After Catling filed his appeal, the trial court revoked his DOSA sentence in an order filed on January 20, 2017. The trial court also reset Catling's LFO payment schedule to commence on January 15, 2018.”
State v. Hart, 353 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues for the first time here (1) the evidence did not show he has or likely will have the ability to pay, (2) imposing court-appointed counsel and expert witness fees as costs infringes on his right to a constitutionally guaranteed trial, and (3) the court should have…”
State Of Washington v. Michael Lee Cooper (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 11× “He argues that (1) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self- defense related to the second degree assault, (2) a police officer’s statements that Cooper wielded a “weapon” were improper opinion testimony, and (3) the trial court erred when it imposed mandatory…”
State Of Washington, V Jamason Christopher Tedder (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “RCW 9.94A.777. Here, as evidenced by his numerous involuntary hospitalizations and treatment in mental health court, Tedder clearly suffers from a mental health condition as defined under RCW 9.”
State of Washington v. Christian Collins Sandstrom (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “Sandstrom contends the trial court erred in imposing the criminal filing fee and DNA fee because those fees were waivable under RCW 9.94A.777. We review this matter for abuse of discretion.”
State Of Washington v. Lavonda Beck (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Beck argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her counsel failed to inform the trial court of RCW 9.94A.777, which governs the 30 Id. (quoting McFarland, 127 Wn.”
State Of Washington v. Christopher Lewis Locken (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “RCW 9.94A.777 Before imposing legal financial obligations, a trial court must determine whether a defendant who suffers from a mental health condition has the ability to pay: (1) Before imposing any legal financial obligations upon a defendant who suffers from a mental health…”
State Of Washington v. James R. Lafontaine (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “1 LaFontaine also argues that because he suffers from a mental health condition, the trial court erred when it imposed certain legal financial obligations (LFOs) without first determining whether he was able to pay under RCW 9.94A.777. We hold that the ineffective assistance of…”
State Of Washington, V. Byron Martin Spear (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “If the trial court finds that the State has not previously collected the defendant’s DNA, the trial court must then consider whether the DNA collection fee should be waived after performing the necessary inquiry under RCW 9.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.777(1) — 20 cases
State v. Tedder, 378 P.3d 246 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9.94A.777. ¶10 Here, as evidenced by his numerous involuntary hospitalizations and treatment in mental health court, *757 Tedder clearly suffers from a mental health condition as defined under RCW 9.”
State Of Washington v. Anthony G. Houck, 446 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “51201-7-II On remand, if the trial court finds that the State has not previously collected Houck’s DNA, the trial court must then consider whether the DNA collection fee should be waived after performing the necessary inquiry under RCW 9.94A.777. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial…”
State v. Hart, 353 P.3d 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues for the first time here (1) the evidence did not show he has or likely will have the ability to pay, (2) imposing court-appointed counsel and expert witness fees as costs infringes on his right to a constitutionally guaranteed trial, and (3) the court should have…”
State Of Washington, V Jamason Christopher Tedder (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9.94A.777. Here, as evidenced by his numerous involuntary hospitalizations and treatment in mental health court, Tedder clearly suffers from a mental health condition as defined under RCW 9.”
State Of Washington, V. Byron Martin Spear (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “If the trial court finds that the State has not previously collected the defendant’s DNA, the trial court must then consider whether the DNA collection fee should be waived after performing the necessary inquiry under RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.777(2) — 11 cases
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Catling, 413 P.3d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “He also argues that the court erred in not considering whether his mental disability required remission of some of his LFOs under RCW 9.94A.777. We consider those contentions in the order listed.”
State Of Washington v. Anthony G. Houck, 446 P.3d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “51201-7-II On remand, if the trial court finds that the State has not previously collected Houck’s DNA, the trial court must then consider whether the DNA collection fee should be waived after performing the necessary inquiry under RCW 9.94A.777. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial…”
State Of Washington, Resp v. Michael Joseph Osker, Ii, App (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Christian Collins Sandstrom (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Sandstrom contends the trial court erred in imposing the criminal filing fee and DNA fee because those fees were waivable under RCW 9.94A.777. We review this matter for abuse of discretion.”
State of Washington v. Eduardo Perez (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.