Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200 (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) The legislature finds and declares that in many instances involving an individual who is not a citizen of the United States charged with an offense punishable as a crime under state law, a plea of guilty is entered without the defendant knowing that a conviction of such offense is grounds for deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature in enacting this section to promote fairness to such accused individuals by requiring in such cases that acceptance of a guilty plea be preceded by an appropriate warning of the special consequences for such a defendant which may result from the plea. It is further the intent of the legislature that at the time of the plea no defendant be required to disclose his or her legal status to the court.
(2) Prior to acceptance of a plea of guilty to any offense punishable as a crime under state law, except offenses designated as infractions under state law, the court shall determine that the defendant has been advised of the following potential consequences of conviction for a defendant who is not a citizen of the United States: Deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States. A defendant signing a guilty plea statement containing the advisement required by this subsection shall be presumed to have received the required advisement. If, after September 1, 1983, the defendant has not been advised as required by this section and the defendant shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty may have the consequences for the defendant of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, the court, on defendant's motion, shall vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty. Absent a written acknowledgment by the defendant of the advisement required by this subsection, the defendant shall be presumed not to have received the required advisement.
(3) With respect to pleas accepted prior to September 1, 1983, it is not the intent of the legislature that a defendant's failure to receive the advisement required by subsection (2) of this section should require the vacation of judgment and withdrawal of the plea or constitute grounds for finding a prior conviction invalid.
[ 1983 c 199 s 1.]

Notes:

Notice to courts—Rules—Forms: "The administrative office of the courts shall notify all courts of the requirements contained in RCW 10.40.200. The judicial council shall recommend to the supreme court appropriate court rules to ensure compliance with the requirements of RCW 10.40.200. Until court rules are promulgated, the administrative office of the courts shall develop and distribute forms necessary for the courts to comply with RCW 10.40.200." [ 2005 c 282 s 21; 1983 c 199 s 2.]
Effective date—1983 c 199 s 1: "Section 1 of this act shall take effect on September 1, 1983." [ 1983 c 199 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: In re the Pers. Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 351 P.3d 138 (Wash. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 351 P.3d 138 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 26× “However, language in certain Washington appellate cases made it appear that this well-established rule did not apply to RCW 10.40.200. In superseding those cases, Padilla significantly changed state law.”
State v. Littlefair, 51 P.3d 116 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 31× “Littlefair was born in Canada but raised in New Jersey, where his parents still reside. He is a resident alien but not a United States citizen.”
State v. Littlefair, 112 Wash. App. 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 28× “Relying on RCW 10.40.200, he moved to set aside his plea.”
State v. Sandoval, 249 P.3d 1015 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 10× “Further, WAPA notes, counsel's assurance was limited to telling Sandoval that he would not be "immediately deported," PRP, exhibit 1, at 2, not that he would never be deported. The State and WAPA also argue that the guilty plea statement contained a warning about the immigration…”
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wash. 2d 163 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 10× “1, at 2, not that he would never be deported. The State and WAPA also argue that the guilty plea statement contained a warning about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, as required by RCW 10.”
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). · cites it 2× “I. Gen. Laws §12–12–22 (Lexis Supp. 2008); Tex.”
State v. Jamison, 20 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “However, the trial court found, based on substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Jamison's former counsel that the court found to be credible, that Jamison was advised categorically by counsel that he would be deported.”
State v. Jamison, 105 Wash. App. 572 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “However, the trial court found, based on substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Jamison’s former counsel that the court found to be credible, that Jamison was advised categorically by counsel that he would be deported.”
State v. Holley, 876 P.2d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “He further asserted that the trial court, in violation of RCW 10.40.200, had failed to determine that he was properly advised of the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas.”
Benyaminov v. City of Bellevue, 183 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “[8] He based his motion primarily on the allegation that he was not warned of the immigration collateral consequence of possible deportation, as required by RCW 10.40.200, when he entered his plea to third degree theft in 1997.”
City of Bellevue v. Benyaminov, 144 Wash. App. 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “8 He based his motion primarily on the allegation that he was not warned of the immigration collateral consequence of possible deportation, as required by RCW 10.40.200, when he entered his plea to third degree theft in 1997.”
State v. Andres Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 2× “13, § 6565(c)(1); Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200 . ¶101 This court has acknowledged that "by enacting Wis.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200(1) — 10 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 351 P.3d 138 (Wash. 2015). “However, language in certain Washington appellate cases made it appear that this well-established rule did not apply to RCW 10.40.200. In superseding those cases, Padilla significantly changed state law.”
State v. Holley, 876 P.2d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “He further asserted that the trial court, in violation of RCW 10.40.200, had failed to determine that he was properly advised of the deportation consequences of his guilty pleas.”
State v. Littlefair, 112 Wash. App. 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Relying on RCW 10.40.200, he moved to set aside his plea.”
State v. Littlefair, 51 P.3d 116 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Littlefair was born in Canada but raised in New Jersey, where his parents still reside. He is a resident alien but not a United States citizen.”
State of Washington v. Jose Antonio Manajares, 391 P.3d 530 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200(2) — 24 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yung-Cheng Tsai, 351 P.3d 138 (Wash. 2015). “However, language in certain Washington appellate cases made it appear that this well-established rule did not apply to RCW 10.40.200. In superseding those cases, Padilla significantly changed state law.”
State v. Sandoval, 249 P.3d 1015 (Wash. 2011). “Further, WAPA notes, counsel's assurance was limited to telling Sandoval that he would not be "immediately deported," PRP, exhibit 1, at 2, not that he would never be deported. The State and WAPA also argue that the guilty plea statement contained a warning about the immigration…”
State v. Sandoval, 171 Wash. 2d 163 (Wash. 2011). “1, at 2, not that he would never be deported. The State and WAPA also argue that the guilty plea statement contained a warning about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, as required by RCW 10.”
Benyaminov v. City of Bellevue, 183 P.3d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[8] He based his motion primarily on the allegation that he was not warned of the immigration collateral consequence of possible deportation, as required by RCW 10.40.200, when he entered his plea to third degree theft in 1997.”
City of Bellevue v. Benyaminov, 144 Wash. App. 755 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “8 He based his motion primarily on the allegation that he was not warned of the immigration collateral consequence of possible deportation, as required by RCW 10.40.200, when he entered his plea to third degree theft in 1997.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200(2008) — 1 case
State of West Virginia v. Orville M. Hutton, 776 S.E.2d 621 (W. Va. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.40.200(3) — 1 case
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Peters, 750 P.2d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
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.