Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.73
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.140 (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 person has previously filed a petition for personal restraint, the court of appeals will not consider the petition unless the person certifies that he or she has not filed a previous petition on similar grounds, and shows good cause why the petitioner did not raise the new grounds in the previous petition. Upon receipt of a personal restraint petition, the court of appeals shall review the petition and determine whether the person has previously filed a petition or petitions and if so, compare them. If upon review, the court of appeals finds that the petitioner has previously raised the same grounds for review, or that the petitioner has failed to show good cause why the ground was not raised earlier, the court of appeals shall dismiss the petition on its own motion without requiring the state to respond to the petition. Upon receipt of a first or subsequent petition, the court of appeals shall, whenever possible, review the petition and determine if the petition is based on frivolous grounds. If frivolous, the court of appeals shall dismiss the petition on its own motion without first requiring the state to respond to the petition.
[ 1989 c 395 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: In Re Pers. Restraint Petition of Becker, 20 P.3d 409 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Pers. Restraint Petition of Becker, 20 P.3d 409 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 40× “ANALYSIS According to Becker, the central issue is whether the *495 petition should have been dismissed as untimely.”
Matter of Johnson, 933 P.2d 1019 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 16× “The State argues RCW 10.73.140 bars Johnson from bringing this second PRP to challenge the calculation of his offender score and, thus, his sentence.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Johnson, 131 Wash. 2d 558 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 16× “The State argues RCW 10.73.140 bars Johnson from bringing *561 this second PRP to challenge the calculation of his offender score and, thus, his sentence.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Bailey, 1 P.3d 1120 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 31× “— We are called upon to determine whether prior filing of a postconviction motion for collateral relief with the trial court subjects a first, nonfrivolous personal restraint petition (PRP) to summary dismissal under RCW 10.73.140. We hold that summary dismissal is appropriate…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Perkins, 19 P.3d 1027 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 14× “The Court of Appeals properly transferred Robert Perkins’ successive personal restraint petition *263 (PRP) to this court for review on the merits rather than dismissing it pursuant to RCW 10.73.140. We hold Mr. Perkins is entitled to the relief he seeks and remand for…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Bell, 387 P.3d 719 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 7× “” But even if his petition is not time-barred, it is successive under RCW 10.73.140 because he has filed prior petitions and fails to show good cause why he did not raise this issue in an earlier petition.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Adolph, 170 Wash. 2d 556 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “*564 Adolph’s PRP is neither successive nor an abuse of the writ ¶13 A petition may be successive under either RCW 10.73.140 or RAP 16.4(d). In re Pers.”
In Re Adolph, 243 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “*544 Adolph's PRP is neither successive nor an abuse of the writ ¶ 11 A petition may be successive under either RCW 10.73.140 or RAP 16.4(d). In re Pers.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Martinez, 171 Wash. 2d 354 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 5× “The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition under RCW 10.73.140 because Mr. Martinez had not shown good cause for failing to raise his claims in a prior petition.”
In Re Pers. Restraint Petition of Vazquez, 31 P.3d 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “The primary issue is *17 whether the PRP is barred by RCW 10.73.140, which prevents this court from considering, without good cause, a PRP from a petitioner who has "previously filed" a PRP.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Turay, 150 Wash. 2d 71 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “It did so pursuant to RCW 10.73.140 and In re Personal Restraint of Perkins, 143 Wn.”
In Re Turay, 74 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “It did so pursuant to RCW 10.73.140 and In re Personal Restraint of Perkins, 143 Wash.”
Show all 140 citing cases →
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.