Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.120 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As soon as practicable after July 23, 1989, the department of corrections shall attempt to advise the following persons of the time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 and 10.73.100: Every person who, on July 23, 1989, is serving a term of incarceration, probation, parole, or community supervision pursuant to conviction of a felony.
[ 1989 c 395 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Matter of Pers. Restraint of Runyan, 853 P.2d 424 (Wash. 2000).
Matter of Pers. Restraint of Runyan, 853 P.2d 424 (Wash. 2000). “[1] Additionally, Runyan has raised a claim that she never received notice of the statute, as required by RCW 10.73.120. The State has submitted affidavits showing that such notice was given on or after October 31, 1989, by posting administrative bulletins explaining the statute…”
In re the Pers. Restraint Well, 133 Wash. 2d 433 (Wash. 1997). “090 did apply, it cannot be imposed against him since the Department of Corrections never attempted to notify *438 him of the time limit, as purportedly required by RCW 10.73.120. The State counters that notice was not required to be given to Well under RCW 10.”
Matter of Well, 946 P.2d 750 (Wash. 1997). “090 did apply, it cannot be imposed against him since the Department of Corrections never attempted to notify him of the time limit, as purportedly required by RCW 10.73.120. The State counters that notice was not required to be given to Well under RCW 10.”
In Re Bratz, 5 P.3d 759 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “090 [2] does not operate to bar his claim because he never received notice of the time limit as required by RCW 10.73.120, which provides: As soon as practicable after July 23, 1989, the department of corrections shall attempt to advise the following persons of the time limit…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Stockwell, 316 P.3d 1007 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 10.73.120. The director of the division of community corrections issued a memorandum dated December 5, 1989, directing community corrections and work release supervisors to post a DOC notice addressing the time limit change.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Bratz, 101 Wash. App. 662 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “090 2 does not operate to bar his claim because he never received notice of the time limit as required by RCW 10.73.120, which provides: As soon as practicable after July 23,1989, the department of corrections shall attempt to advise the following persons of the time limit…”
Matter of Pers. Restraint of Vega, 823 P.2d 1111 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 10.73.120 provides that the State try to provide notice of the 1-year time limit contained in RCW 10.”
State v. Schwab, 167 P.3d 1225 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 1111 (1992) (applying rule to RCW 10.73.120); State v. Golden, 112 Wash.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Turay, 150 Wash. 2d 71 (Wash. 2003). “However, the rules cannot, and do not, supersede the legislature’s grant of jurisdiction in the statute to the Court of Appeals over habeas corpus matters.”
In Re Turay, 74 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). “However, the rules cannot, and do not, supersede the legislature's grant of jurisdiction in the statute to the Court of Appeals over habeas corpus matters.”
State v. Merritt, 434 P.3d 1016 (Wash. 2019). “at 450 (emphasis omitted)(quoting RCW 10.73.120). It was undisputed that the department failed even to attempt to advise Vega ofthe new time bar.”
In Re Stockwell, 254 P.3d 899 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 10.73.120. ¶ 4 In 2004, Stockwell was convicted of first degree child molestation and first degree attempted child molestation.”
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.