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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.100 (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 is subsequently convicted of a similar offense that was committed while the petitioner was in a deferred prosecution program, upon notice the court shall remove the petitioner's docket from the deferred prosecution file and the court shall enter judgment pursuant to RCW 10.05.020.
[ 1998 c 208 s 2; 1985 c 352 s 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—1998 c 208: See note following RCW 10.05.010.
Legislative finding—Severability—1985 c 352: See notes following RCW 10.05.010.
PDF

RCW 10.05.100

Conviction of similar offense. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

If a petitioner is subsequently convicted of a similar offense that was committed while the petitioner was in a deferred prosecution, upon notice the court shall remove the petitioner's docket from the deferred prosecution file and the court shall enter judgment pursuant to RCW 10.05.020.
[ 2024 c 306 s 19; 1998 c 208 s 2; 1985 c 352 s 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Effective date—1998 c 208: See note following RCW 10.05.010.
Legislative finding—Severability—1985 c 352: See notes following RCW 10.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Higley, 902 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Higley, 902 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “090 and RCW 10.05.100. 11 RCW 10.05.090 permits the court to terminate a defendant’s treatment plan if he or she fails or neglects to perform it.”
Abad v. Cozza, 128 Wash. 2d 575 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “By contrast, RCW 10.05.100 provides that: If a petitioner is subsequently convicted of a similar offense while in a deferred prosecution program, upon notice the court shall remove the petitioner’s docket from the deferred prosecution file and the court shall enter judgment…”
Abad v. Cozza, 911 P.2d 376 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “By contrast, RCW 10.05.100 provides that: If a petitioner is subsequently convicted of a similar offense while in a deferred prosecution program, upon notice the court shall remove the petitioner's docket from the deferred prosecution file and the court shall enter judgment…”
City of Seattle v. Winebrenner, 219 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2009). “The second offense will have one prior offense — the offense for which deferred prosecution was revoked upon the subsequent conviction, see RCW 10.05.100, because that offense occurred prior to the second offense (the arrest for the offense that was the subject of the deferred…”
State v. Kuhn, 875 P.2d 1225 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “Kuhn appeals from a superior court order revoking his deferred prosecution for driving while intoxicated, claiming his subsequent conviction did not support revocation under RCW 10.05.100 because the subsequent conviction was being appealed.”
State v. Hahn, 924 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 10.05.100. In addition, the prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on grounds that a prior deferred prosecution has been granted to the defendant within five years.”
State v. Cassill-Skilton, 94 P.3d 407 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 10.05.100. [2] Here, there is no record to show the basis of termination, any opportunity for a hearing on the alleged violations, nor any findings to show what evidence the court relied on in finding an agreement violation.”
State v. Cassill-Skilton, 122 Wash. App. 652 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 10.05.100. 2 Here, there is no record to show the basis of termination, any opportunity for a hearing on the alleged violations, nor any findings to show what evidence the court relied on in finding an agreement violation.”
State Of Washington v. Alem Skrobo, 485 P.3d 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “RCW 10.05.100 provides, If a petitioner is subsequently convicted of a similar offense that was committed while the petitioner was in a deferred prosecution program, upon notice the court shall remove the petitioner’s docket from the deferred prosecution file and the court shall…”
State Of Washington, V. Deborah Peoples, 567 P.3d 1150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” RCW 10.05.100 (emphasis added); State v. Higley, 78 Wn.”
City of Seattle v. Winebrenner, 219 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2009). “The second offense will have one prior offense—the offense for which deferred prosecution was revoked upon the subsequent conviction, see RCW 10.05.100, because that offense occurred prior to the second offense (the arrest for the offense that was the subject of the deferred…”
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.