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

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150 (2026)

Right to counsel

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Counsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender convicted of a crime and to a juvenile offender convicted of an offense when the offender is indigent or indigent and able to contribute as those terms are defined in RCW 10.101.010 and the offender:
(1) Files an appeal as a matter of right;
(2) Responds to an appeal filed as a matter of right or responds to a motion for discretionary review or petition for review filed by the state;
(3) Is under a sentence of death and requests counsel be appointed to file and prosecute a motion or petition for collateral attack as defined in RCW 10.73.090. Counsel may be provided at public expense to file or prosecute a second or subsequent collateral attack on the same judgment and sentence, if the court determines that the collateral attack is not barred by RCW 10.73.090 or 10.73.140;
(4) Is not under a sentence of death and requests counsel to prosecute a collateral attack after the chief judge has determined that the issues raised by the petition are not frivolous, in accordance with the procedure contained in rules of appellate procedure 16.11. Counsel shall not be provided at public expense to file or prosecute a second or subsequent collateral attack on the same judgment and sentence;
(5) Responds to a collateral attack filed by the state or responds to or prosecutes an appeal from a collateral attack that was filed by the state;
(6) Prosecutes a motion or petition for review after the supreme court or court of appeals has accepted discretionary review of a decision of a court of limited jurisdiction; or
(7) Prosecutes a motion or petition for review after the supreme court has accepted discretionary review of a court of appeals decision.
[ 1995 c 275 s 2.]

Notes:

Finding—1995 c 275: "The legislature is aware that the constitutional requirements of equal protection and due process require that counsel be provided for indigent persons and persons who are indigent and able to contribute for the first appeal as a matter of right from a judgment and sentence in a criminal case or a juvenile offender proceeding, and no further. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel at public expense to collaterally attack a judgment and sentence in a criminal case or juvenile offender proceeding or to seek discretionary review of a lower appellate court decision.
The legislature finds that it is appropriate to extend the right to counsel at state expense beyond constitutional requirements in certain limited circumstances to persons who are indigent and persons who are indigent and able to contribute as those terms are defined in RCW 10.101.010." [ 1995 c 275 s 1.]
Severability—1995 c 275: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1995 c 275 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: In Re Woods, 114 P.3d 607 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Woods, 114 P.3d 607 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 5× “¶ 84 I agree with the majority that "Woods has not shown that his due process and equal protection rights were violated by the denial of some of his requests for funds for investigative and expert services.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Woods, 154 Wash. 2d 400 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 5× “¶85 RCW 10.73.150 provides in relevant part: Counsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender convicted of a crime .”
In Re Davis, 101 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “[354] RCW 10.73.150 provides that: Counsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender convicted of a crime .”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Davis, 152 Wash. 2d 647 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “354 RCW 10.73.150 provides that: Counsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender convicted of a crime .”
State v. Robinson, 107 P.3d 90 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “5 (motion for a new trial) by an appeal or a PRR RCW 10.73.150, regarding the right to counsel on collateral attack, was not enacted until 1995, after CrR 7.”
State v. Larranaga, 126 Wash. App. 505 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “” RCW 10.73.150(1). ¶8 Larranaga argues that his motion is appealable as a matter of right under RAP 2.”
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “RCW 10.73.150. ¶46 RCW 10.101.010(3) defines a person as “indigent” for the purposes of receiving appointed counsel if he or she satisfies at least one of four disjunctive criteria at any stage of a legal proceeding.”
State v. Devlin, 267 P.3d 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “meeting the requirements of RCW 10.73.150.” RCW 10.73.150 states that “[c]ounsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender .”
State v. Mahone, 989 P.2d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “See RCW 10.73.150. MOTION SEEKING REMISSION Mahone is not entitled to publicly funded counsel to file a motion for remission.”
In re the Pers. Restraint Gentry, 972 P.2d 1250 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “Gentry’s attorneys were appointed under RCW 10.73.150. Claims must be specific to the petitioner’s own case.”
State v. Winston, 19 P.3d 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “2d 583 (1999) (RCW 10.73.150 controls right to publicly funded counsel in proceedings beyond the first appeal as a matter of right, and does not provide such a right with respect to a motion in the trial court for relief from costs awarded by appellate court.”
In Re Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 972 P.2d 1250 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “The trial court shall enter findings of fact on the following questions only: (a) did the claimed contact occur? and, if so, (b) under what circumstances did the contact occur? The trial court shall transmit those findings to this court not later than January 30, 1998.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(1) — 6 cases
State v. Larranaga, 126 Wash. App. 505 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 10.73.150(1). ¶8 Larranaga argues that his motion is appealable as a matter of right under RAP 2.”
State v. Davis, 104 P.3d 11 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Larranaga, 108 P.3d 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Thompson, 967 P.2d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
State Of Washington, V. Kenneth D. Bolden (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(3) — 5 cases
In Re Woods, 114 P.3d 607 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 84 I agree with the majority that "Woods has not shown that his due process and equal protection rights were violated by the denial of some of his requests for funds for investigative and expert services.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Woods, 154 Wash. 2d 400 (Wash. 2005). “¶85 RCW 10.73.150 provides in relevant part: Counsel shall be provided at state expense to an adult offender convicted of a crime .”
In re the Pers. Restraint Gentry, 972 P.2d 1250 (Wash. 1999). “Gentry’s attorneys were appointed under RCW 10.73.150. Claims must be specific to the petitioner’s own case.”
In Re Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 972 P.2d 1250 (Wash. 1999). “The trial court shall enter findings of fact on the following questions only: (a) did the claimed contact occur? and, if so, (b) under what circumstances did the contact occur? The trial court shall transmit those findings to this court not later than January 30, 1998.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Don Arthur Moore (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(4) — 23 cases
State v. Larranaga, 126 Wash. App. 505 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 10.73.150(1). ¶8 Larranaga argues that his motion is appealable as a matter of right under RAP 2.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Swagerty, 383 P.3d 454 (Wash. 2016).
State v. Winston, 19 P.3d 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “2d 583 (1999) (RCW 10.73.150 controls right to publicly funded counsel in proceedings beyond the first appeal as a matter of right, and does not provide such a right with respect to a motion in the trial court for relief from costs awarded by appellate court.”
State v. Winston, 105 Wash. App. 318 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Khan, 184 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(5) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Anthony Dewayne Parker (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(6) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 10.73.150. ¶46 RCW 10.101.010(3) defines a person as “indigent” for the purposes of receiving appointed counsel if he or she satisfies at least one of four disjunctive criteria at any stage of a legal proceeding.”
State v. Johnson (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.150(7) — 2 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Stoudmire, 5 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2000).
In Re Stoudmire, 5 P.3d 1240 (Wash. 2000).
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.