In a recent decision, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Keith Zakeem Reeves for third-degree assault and malicious mischief. The court ruled on November 3, 2026, in case number 61232-1-II, affirming the trial court's decision regarding restitution while also addressing a clerical error in the judgment. This ruling impacts Reeves, who faced legal consequences following a domestic violence incident.

The case revolves around a domestic violence dispute involving Reeves and his ex-girlfriend, which led to his arrest. During transport to the Pierce County Jail, Reeves headbutted and kicked the patrol car, causing significant damage and requiring a biohazard cleaning due to blood from his injuries. The total cost for cleaning the patrol car was $446.96. Reeves later pleaded guilty to the charges, which included assault and malicious mischief.

The trial court found Reeves indigent, meaning he did not have sufficient financial resources to pay for certain legal costs. Despite this finding, the court ordered him to pay restitution for the damage caused to the patrol car. At the sentencing, both Reeves and his counsel signed the restitution order, which included an interest provision that would apply to the restitution amount. This provision stated that interest would accrue from the date of the judgment until the restitution was paid in full.

Reeves appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the imposition of interest on the restitution was an abuse of discretion. He contended that the trial court did not adequately consider his indigency and financial circumstances before deciding to impose interest, as required by Washington state law. However, the State argued that Reeves did not raise this issue during the trial, which meant he failed to preserve it for appeal.

The court ruled that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not considered. It stated, "We agree with the State and decline to review the issue." The court emphasized that the specific inquiry about the defendant's financial situation must be made at the trial level, not on appeal.

Additionally, Reeves raised concerns about conflicting orders related to his indigency and the interest on restitution. However, the court noted that he introduced this issue too late in the appeal process, stating, "An issue raised and argued for the first time in a reply brief is too late to warrant consideration."

Despite affirming the trial court's decision regarding the imposition of interest, the court acknowledged a clerical error in the judgment. The court ordered Reeves to report to the court clerk’s office for restitution matters, which was not feasible as he was incarcerated. The State conceded this error, and the court remanded the case specifically to correct this clerical mistake, directing Reeves to report to the Department of Corrections instead.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the responsibilities of trial courts when imposing restitution and interest, particularly concerning defendants' financial situations. The decision underscores the importance of addressing such issues at the trial level to ensure due process.

Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for how courts handle restitution orders, especially in cases involving indigent defendants. It highlights the necessity for trial courts to conduct thorough inquiries into a defendant's financial circumstances when determining whether to impose interest on restitution.

As for what’s next, Reeves may have the option to appeal the court's decision, though the likelihood of success appears limited given the court's findings. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.