Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.120 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Three years after receiving proof of successful completion of the two-year treatment program, and following proof to the court that the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed by the court following successful completion of the two-year treatment program, but not before five years following entry of the order of deferred prosecution pursuant to a petition brought under RCW 10.05.020(1), the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner.
(2) When a deferred prosecution is ordered pursuant to a petition brought under RCW 10.05.020(2) and the court has received proof that the petitioner has successfully completed the child welfare service plan, or the plan has been terminated because the alleged victim has reached his or her majority and there are no other minor children in the home, the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner: PROVIDED, That in any case where the petitioner's parental rights have been terminated with regard to the alleged victim due to abuse or neglect that occurred during the pendency of the deferred prosecution, the termination shall be per se evidence that the petitioner did not successfully complete the child welfare service plan.
(3) When a deferred prosecution is ordered for a petition brought under RCW 10.05.020(1) involving a domestic violence behavior problem and the court has received proof that the petitioner has successfully completed the domestic violence treatment plan, the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner.
[ 2019 c 263 s 705; 2003 c 220 s 1; 2002 c 219 s 14; 1998 c 208 s 3; 1994 c 275 s 19; 1985 c 352 s 15; 1983 c 165 s 45; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 12.]
Notes:
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Intent—Finding—2002 c 219: See note following RCW 9A.42.037.
Effective date—1998 c 208: See note following RCW 10.05.010.
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.
Legislative finding, intent—Effective dates—Severability—1983 c 165: See notes following RCW 46.20.308.
(1) Three years after receiving proof of successful completion of the approved treatment plan, and following proof to the court that the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed by the court following successful completion of the approved treatment plan, but not before five years following entry of the order of deferred prosecution pursuant to a petition brought under RCW 10.05.020(1), the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner.
(2) When a deferred prosecution is ordered pursuant to a petition brought under RCW 10.05.020(2) and the court has received proof that the petitioner has successfully completed the child welfare service plan, or the plan has been terminated because the alleged victim has reached his or her majority and there are no other minor children in the home, the court shall dismiss the charges pending against the petitioner: PROVIDED, That in any case where the petitioner's parental rights have been terminated with regard to the alleged victim due to abuse or neglect that occurred during the pendency of the deferred prosecution, the termination shall be per se evidence that the petitioner did not successfully complete the child welfare service plan.
[ 2024 c 306 s 20; 2019 c 263 s 705; 2003 c 220 s 1; 2002 c 219 s 14; 1998 c 208 s 3; 1994 c 275 s 19; 1985 c 352 s 15; 1983 c 165 s 45; 1975 1st ex.s. c 244 s 12.]
Notes:
Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Intent—Finding—2002 c 219: See note following RCW 9A.42.037.
Effective date—1998 c 208: See note following RCW 10.05.010.
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.
Legislative finding, intent—Effective dates—Severability—1983 c 165: See notes following RCW 46.20.308.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Michel v. City of Richland, 950 P.2d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Michel v. City of Richland, 950 P.2d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Michel entered into deferred prosecution, former RCW 10.05.120 provided that a deferred prosecution could be used to enhance a sentence for any subsequent offenses within a five-year period.”
State v. Vinge, 795 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “The Superior Court rejected this contention, concluding that pursuant to RCW 10.05.120, the District Court had the necessary jurisdiction to revoke the defendant's deferred prosecution more than 2 years after the entry of the order.”
State v. Hahn, 924 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 10.05.120. The statute does not distinguish between a completed deferred prosecution program and an uncompleted program.”
State v. Higley, 902 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “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.”
City of Kent v. Jenkins, 992 P.2d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “515 (1985) and RCW 10.05.120. In 1995, he successfully completed the deferred prosecution and the charge was dismissed.”
Abad v. Cozza, 128 Wash. 2d 575 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 10.05.120. Thus, the successful completion of the treatment program by a person who acknowledges culpability pursuant to RCW 10.”
Abad v. Cozza, 911 P.2d 376 (Wash. 1996). “070, and any evidence resulting from the investigation of the person for deferred prosecution or a petition, if the petition is unsuccessful, is inadmissable at trial.”
State Of Washington v. Alem Skrobo, 485 P.3d 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Because Skrobo’s interpretation leads to an absurd result, rendering the court powerless to impose consequences for violation of 3 RCW 10.05.120 was amended in 2019, effective January 1, 2021.”
City of Bremerton v. Tucker, 103 P.3d 1285 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “We recognize that in Michel , former RCW 10.05.120 (1992) specifically provided that a sentencing court can consider prior deferred prosecutions for enhancement purposes.”
State v. Bays, 954 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 10.05.120. Starting the five-year ineligibility period at the time a petitioner enters the program does not interfere with the above consequences of noncompliance or with the incentives to complete the program as soon as possible.”
Doe v. Fife Mun. Court, 874 P.2d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “At least three of the prosecutions were dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 10.05.120, before the present action was filed in superior court.”
City of Bremerton v. Tucker, 103 P.3d 1285 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[8] We recognize that in Michel , former RCW 10.05.120 (1992) specifically provided that a sentencing court can consider prior deferred prosecutions for enhancement purposes.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.120(1) — 3 cases
State Of Washington v. Alem Skrobo, 485 P.3d 333 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Because Skrobo’s interpretation leads to an absurd result, rendering the court powerless to impose consequences for violation of 3 RCW 10.05.120 was amended in 2019, effective January 1, 2021.”
State of Washington v. Julian Cameron Lester (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. Deborah Peoples, 567 P.3d 1150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.