¶1¶23 (concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion but write separately regarding Lundy’s legal financial obligation (LFO) challenge because I would follow our analysis in State v. Blazina, 174 Wn. App. 906, 301 P.3d 492 (2013), petition for review filed, No. 89028-5 (Wash. July 8, 2013). I would decline to reach the merits of the LFO issue because Lundy did not object when the trial court found that Lundy had a present or future ability to pay LFOs and when the trial court imposed the LFOs. Accordingly, I would hold that Lundy did not properly preserve the issue for appellate review. RAP 2.5(a).
176 Wash. App. 96
State v. Lundy
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 13, 2013
Court of Appeals of Washington · decided 2013-08-13
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2019
21 state decisions
Relies on State v. Blazina
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2013-08-13
View the full empirical analysis of this case →