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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.160 (2026)

Appeal of deferred prosecution order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on any or all of the following grounds:
(1) Prior deferred prosecution has been granted to the defendant;
(2) For a present petition alleging a domestic violence behavior problem, a prior stipulated order of continuance has been granted to the defendant;
(3) Failure of the court to obtain proof of insurance or a treatment plan conforming to the requirements of this chapter;
(4) Failure of the court to comply with the requirements of RCW 10.05.100;
(5) Failure of the evaluation facility to provide the information required in RCW 10.05.040 and 10.05.050, if the defendant has been referred to the facility for treatment. If an appeal on such basis is successful, the trial court may consider the use of another treatment program;
(6) Failure of the court to order the installation of an ignition interlock or other device under RCW 10.05.140.
[ 2019 c 263 s 707; 2010 c 269 s 11; 2008 c 282 s 19; 1999 c 143 s 44; 1998 c 208 s 4; 1985 c 352 s 18.]

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.
Effective date—2010 c 269: See note following RCW 46.20.385.
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 6 cases, 1991–2001 · leading case: State v. Williams, 813 P.2d 1293 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Williams, 813 P.2d 1293 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “The second, RCW 10.05.160, provides: The prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on any or all of the following grounds: *339 (2) Failure of the court to obtain proof of insurance or a treatment plan conforming to the requirements of this chapter; The State…”
State v. Bays, 954 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “) If the State believes the trial court *735 improperly granted deferred prosecution, RCW 10.05.160 provides the following remedy: The prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on any or all of the following grounds: (1) Prior deferred prosecution has been…”
State v. Hahn, 924 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 10.05.160(1) (emphasis added). If, however, a defendant successfully completes the two-year treatment program, the court must dismiss the pending charges.”
City of Walla Walla v. Topel, 17 P.3d 1244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “010 and RCW 10.05.160 do not violate ex post facto principles.”
City of Walla Walla v. Topel, 17 P.3d 1244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “010 and RCW 10.05.160 do not violate ex post facto principles.”
S. Martinelli & Co. v. Wash. State Dept. of Rev., 912 P.2d 521 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “140 and RCW 10.05.160). It therefore follows that the court will attempt to harmonize the provisions within a particular title, i.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.160(1) — 2 cases
State v. Hahn, 924 P.2d 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “RCW 10.05.160(1) (emphasis added). If, however, a defendant successfully completes the two-year treatment program, the court must dismiss the pending charges.”
State v. Bays, 954 P.2d 301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “) If the State believes the trial court *735 improperly granted deferred prosecution, RCW 10.05.160 provides the following remedy: The prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on any or all of the following grounds: (1) Prior deferred prosecution has been…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.05.160(2) — 1 case
State v. Williams, 813 P.2d 1293 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “The second, RCW 10.05.160, provides: The prosecutor may appeal an order granting deferred prosecution on any or all of the following grounds: *339 (2) Failure of the court to obtain proof of insurance or a treatment plan conforming to the requirements of this chapter; The State…”
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.