State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham

       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                           DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,                       )      No. 80769-2-I
                                           )
                           Respondent,     )
                                           )
                v.                         )      UNPUBLISHED OPINION
                                           )
CHRIS ANN WICKHAM,                         )
                                           )
                           Appellant.      )

     PER CURIAM — Chris Wickham appeals the judgment and sentence imposed

following her conviction for felony driving under the influence. She contends that

the trial court waived all discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs), but that

the judgment and sentence requires her to pay the costs of supervision by the

Department of Corrections (DOC). The State concedes that this condition should

be stricken because Wickham was indigent, and the sentencing court clearly

intended to impose only mandatory legal financial obligations. See State v.

Lundstrom, 

6 Wash. App. 2d

388, 396 n.3, 

429 P.3d 1116

(2018) (costs of

supervision are discretionary); State v. Dillon, 

12 Wash. App. 2d

133, 152, 

456 P.3d 1199

(2020) (striking DOC supervision fee where “[t]he record demonstrate[d]
No. 80769-2-I/2


that the trial court intended to impose only mandatory LFOs”). We accept the

State’s concession, and remand to the trial court to strike the supervision fee.




                                         2
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on NO-SCAM.com, it is strongly advised to avoid State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike No-Scam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham were submitted by NO-SCAM.com user(s) and have been published as-is. NO-SCAM.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and NO-SCAM.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on State Of Washington v. Chris Ann Wickham at any cost whatsoever.
>