STATE v. STEVEN

PER CURIAM.

Ares Stevens appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his Alford plea of guilty to vehicular assault. Stevens contends that the trial court erred in requiring him to provide a biological sample for DNA identification. The contention fails under State v. Surge, 122 Wn. App. 448, 94 P.3d 345 (2004) and State v. Olivas, 122 Wn.2d 73, 856 P.2d 1076 (1993). We also reject the arguments raised in Stevens' pro se statement of additional grounds for review.

In Surge, this court rejected the argument that RCW 43.43.754 and the portion of the defendant's sentence requiring him to provide a biological sample for DNA identification violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The court held that Olivas is controlling and binding on this court. Surge, 122 Wn. App. at 460. Stevens' challenge fails.

Stevens contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when blood was taken at a hospital without his consent and was thereafter used against him, and that contrary to the officer's report, Stevens did not admit to driving the vehicle. Because Stevens pled guilty, he may not raise trial issues on appeal. State v. Perkins, 108 Wn.2d 212, 217, 737 P.2d 250 (1987).

Stevens next contends that a Seattle newspaper in 2004 reported contamination and other problems at state crime labs while handling DNA samples and other evidence. To the extent he attempts to challenge his conviction, he cannot do so in light of his guilty plea. Id. Moreover, he has failed to allege how any such problems may have affected his case. We decline to address the contention.

Finally, Stevens questions how many state agencies can punish him, noting that he was sentenced under the criminal law and also is being punished by the Department of Licensing and deprived of his right to vote. Stevens has failed to set forth sufficient information to inform the court of the nature and occurrence of the alleged errors. RAP 10.10.

Affirmed.

COLEMAN, J., GROSSE, J. and BAKER, J.