Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.090 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If a petitioner, who has been accepted for a deferred prosecution, fails or neglects to carry out and fulfill any term or condition of the petitioner's treatment plan or any term or condition imposed in connection with the installation of an interlock or other device under RCW 46.20.720, the facility, center, institution, or agency administering the treatment or the entity administering the use of the device, shall immediately report such breach to the court, the prosecutor, and the petitioner or petitioner's attorney of record, together with its recommendation. The court upon receiving such a report shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner should be removed from the deferred prosecution program. At the hearing, evidence shall be taken of the petitioner's alleged failure to comply with the treatment plan or device installation and the petitioner shall have the right to present evidence on his or her own behalf. The court shall either order that the petitioner continue on the treatment plan or be removed from deferred prosecution. If removed from deferred prosecution, the court shall enter judgment pursuant to RCW 10.05.020 and, if the charge for which the deferred prosecution was granted was a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor under Title 46 RCW, shall notify the department of licensing of the removal and entry of judgment.
[ 2010 c 269 s 10; 2008 c 282 s 17; 1997 c 229 s 1; 1994 c 275 s 18; 1985 c 352 s 12; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 9.]

Notes:

Effective date—2010 c 269: See note following RCW 46.20.385.
Effective date—1997 c 229: "This act takes effect January 1, 1998." [ 1997 c 229 s 15.]
Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.
Legislative finding—Severability—1985 c 352: See notes following RCW 10.05.010.
PDF

RCW 10.05.090

Procedure upon breach of treatment plan. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

If a petitioner, who has been accepted for a deferred prosecution, fails or neglects to carry out and fulfill any term or condition of the petitioner's treatment plan or any term or condition imposed in connection with the installation of an interlock or other device under RCW 46.20.720, the facility, center, institution, or agency administering the treatment or the entity administering the use of the device, shall immediately report such breach to the court, the prosecutor, and the petitioner or petitioner's attorney of record, together with its recommendation. The court upon receiving such a report shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner should be removed from the deferred prosecution. At the hearing, evidence shall be taken of the petitioner's alleged failure to comply with the treatment plan or device installation and the petitioner shall have the right to present evidence on his or her own behalf. The court shall either order that the petitioner continue on the treatment plan or be removed from deferred prosecution. If removed from deferred prosecution, the court shall enter judgment pursuant to RCW 10.05.020 and, if the charge for which the deferred prosecution was granted was a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor under Title 46 RCW, shall notify the department of licensing of the removal and entry of judgment.
[ 2024 c 306 s 18; 2010 c 269 s 10; 2008 c 282 s 17; 1997 c 229 s 1; 1994 c 275 s 18; 1985 c 352 s 12; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 9.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Effective date—2010 c 269: See note following RCW 46.20.385.
Effective date—1997 c 229: "This act takes effect January 1, 1998." [ 1997 c 229 s 15.]
Short title—Effective date—1994 c 275: See notes following RCW 46.04.015.
Legislative finding—Severability—1985 c 352: See notes following RCW 10.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Abad v. Cozza, 128 Wash. 2d 575 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abad v. Cozza, 128 Wash. 2d 575 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 7× “020 and is in need of treatment results in the complete avoidance of the usual process and consequences of the criminal system.”
Abad v. Cozza, 911 P.2d 376 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 7× “020 and is in need of treatment results in the complete avoidance of the usual process and consequences of the criminal system.”
State v. Higley, 902 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Citing RCW 10.05.090 and RCW 10.05.120, it further ruled that it lacked the authority to dismiss the charges without prejudice, unless the defendant had failed to perform his treatment plan or had successfully completed treatment.”
State v. Hahn, 924 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 10.05.090. If a defendant is convicted of a similar offense while in a deferred prosecution program, the court shall enter judgment pursuant to RCW 10.”
State v. Cassill-Skilton, 94 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 10.05.090 requires a court to conduct a hearing, after notice, to determine whether to terminate a participant from the program when it receives notice of a breach of a deferred prosecution agreement.”
State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wash. App. 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 10.05.090 requires a court to conduct a hearing, after notice, to determine whether to terminate a participant from the program when it receives notice of a breach of a deferred prosecution agreement.”
Alwood v. Aukeen Dist. Court Comm'r Harper, 973 P.2d 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “14 RCW 10.05.090. 15 RCW 10.05.090; RCW 10.05.”
State v. Bays, 954 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 10.05.090 and .100. But a petitioner who completes the program may have the pending charges dismissed.”
State v. Vinge, 795 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “" RCW 10.05.090. RCW 10.05.120, at issue in the instant appeal, provides in pertinent part: "Upon proof of successful completion of *137 the two-year treatment program, the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner.”
Metlow v. Spokane Alcoholic Rehab. Ctr., Inc., 781 P.2d 498 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Metlow's contention that SPARC violated RCW 10.05.090 sufficient to establish SPARC's negligence per se.”
State Of Washington, V. Deborah Peoples, 567 P.3d 1150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 15× “We believe the proper framing of the issues before us is, when the district court was presented with alleged violations of its Order, whether RCW 10.05.090 No. 86111-5-I/2 required the court to either continue Peoples’ treatment plan or remove her from the deferred prosecution.”
State v. Varnell, 155 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “3d 407 . He argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by not conducting a termination hearing based on his own request to terminate his drug court participation.”
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.