Wash. Rev. Code » Title 10 · Chapter 10.99
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.080 (2026)

Penalty assessment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) All superior courts, and courts organized under Title 3 or 35 RCW, may impose a penalty of one hundred dollars, plus an additional fifteen dollars on any adult offender convicted of a crime involving domestic violence; in no case shall a penalty assessment exceed one hundred fifteen dollars on any adult offender convicted of a crime involving domestic violence. The assessment shall be in addition to, and shall not supersede, any other penalty, restitution, fines, or costs provided by law.
(2) Revenue from the:
(a) One hundred dollar assessment shall be used solely for the purposes of establishing and funding domestic violence advocacy and domestic violence prevention and prosecution programs in the city or county of the court imposing the assessment. Such revenue from the assessment shall not be used for indigent criminal defense. If the city or county does not have domestic violence advocacy or domestic violence prevention and prosecution programs, cities and counties may use the revenue collected from the assessment to contract with recognized community-based domestic violence program providers.
(b) Fifteen dollar assessment must be remitted monthly to the state treasury for deposit in the domestic violence prevention account.
(3) The one hundred dollar assessment imposed under this section shall not be subject to any state or local remittance requirements under chapter 3.46, 3.50, 3.62, 7.68, 10.82, or 35.20 RCW.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "convicted" includes a plea of guilty, a finding of guilt regardless of whether the imposition of the sentence is deferred or any part of the penalty is suspended, or the levying of a fine. For the purposes of this section, "domestic violence" has the same meaning as that term is defined under RCW 10.99.020 and includes violations of equivalent local ordinances.
(5) When determining whether to impose a penalty assessment under this section, judges are encouraged to solicit input from the victim or representatives for the victim in assessing the ability of the convicted offender to pay the penalty, including information regarding current financial obligations, family circumstances, and ongoing restitution.
[ 2023 c 470 s 1003. Prior: 2015 c 275 s 14; 2015 c 265 s 24; 2004 c 15 s 2.]

Notes:

Explanatory statement—2023 c 470: See note following RCW 10.99.030.
Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Intent—2004 c 15: "The legislature recognizes that domestic violence is a growing and more visible public safety problem in Washington state than ever before, and that domestic violence-related incidents have a significant bearing on overall law enforcement and court caseloads. The legislature further recognizes the growing costs associated with domestic violence prevention and advocacy programs established by local governments and by community-based organizations.
It is the legislature's intent to establish a penalty in law that will hold convicted domestic violence offenders accountable while requiring them to pay penalties to offset the costs of domestic violence advocacy and prevention programs. It is the legislature's intent that the penalties imposed against convicted domestic violence offenders under section 2 of this act be used for established domestic violence prevention and prosecution programs. It is the legislature's intent that the revenue from the penalty assessment shall be in addition to existing sources of funding to enhance or help prevent the reduction and elimination of domestic violence prevention and prosecution programs." [ 2004 c 15 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: State of Washington v. Benjamin G. Smith, 442 P.3d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Washington v. Benjamin G. Smith, 442 P.3d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Instead, it is a penalty assessment governed by RCW 10.99.080. 4 No. 35708-2-III State v.”
State Of Washington, V Quran D. A. Ingram, 447 P.3d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “In contrast, his misdemeanor judgment and sentence states that the trial court found that Ingram “does not have the ability to pay legal financial obligations as imposed below.” CP at 381.”
State Of Washington v. Donald John Heutink, 458 P.3d 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 10.99.080(1) provides in part that courts “~~y impose a penalty assessment not to exceed one hundred dollars on any adult offender convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.”
State v. Moreno, 294 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 10.99.080(1). “Domestic violence” includes first degree assault “committed by one family or household member against another.”
State of Washington v. Jason Michael Catling, 413 P.3d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “160; RCW 10.99.080; RCW 36.18.020(2)(h); RCW 43.”
Francisco Moreno, Appellant/cr-respondent v. State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant, 470 P.3d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 10.99.080(5) encourages, but does not require, judges to solicit input from the victim or representatives for the victim in assessing the ability of the convicted offender to pay the penalty.”
State Of Washington v. Griffin Levi Howland (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The State attempts to distinguish Blazina by arguing that the domestic violence penalty in RCW 10.99.080 should be treated differently than discretionary LFOs imposed under the costs statute, RCW 10.”
State Of Washington v. Jose Carlos Sanchez-ruiz (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “The court waived imposition of all discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) except the $100 domestic violence penalty under RCW 10.99.080(1). Sanchez-Ruiz argues the court violated RCW 10.”
State Of Washington, V Quran D. A. Ingram, 442 P.3d 286 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “In contrast, his misdemeanor judgment and sentence states that the trial court found that Ingram “does not have the ability to pay legal financial obligations as imposed below.” CP at 381.”
State of Washington v. Abdul Rahman Sweidan (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Sweidan emphasizes that RCW 10.99.080(1) states a court “may” impose a domestic violence penalty assessment.”
State of Washington v. Abdul Rahman Sweidan (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Sweidan emphasizes that RCW 10.99.080(1) states a court “may” impose a domestic violence penalty assessment.”
State Of Washington, V. Carl Harris (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “84809-7-I/2 the prosecutor inaccurately stated the penalty was mandatory, the court may reconsider the DVP consistent with RCW 10.99.080. Because amended RCW 10.82.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.080(1) — 24 cases
State Of Washington v. Donald John Heutink, 458 P.3d 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 10.99.080(1) provides in part that courts “~~y impose a penalty assessment not to exceed one hundred dollars on any adult offender convicted of a crime involving domestic violence.”
State v. Moreno, 294 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 10.99.080(1). “Domestic violence” includes first degree assault “committed by one family or household member against another.”
State of Washington v. Benjamin G. Smith, 442 P.3d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Instead, it is a penalty assessment governed by RCW 10.99.080. 4 No. 35708-2-III State v.”
State Of Washington v. Jose Carlos Sanchez-ruiz (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The court waived imposition of all discretionary legal financial obligations (LFOs) except the $100 domestic violence penalty under RCW 10.99.080(1). Sanchez-Ruiz argues the court violated RCW 10.”
State Of Washington v. Ryan Effinger (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.080(5) — 21 cases
Francisco Moreno, Appellant/cr-respondent v. State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant, 470 P.3d 507 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 10.99.080(5) encourages, but does not require, judges to solicit input from the victim or representatives for the victim in assessing the ability of the convicted offender to pay the penalty.”
State Of Washington, V Quran D. A. Ingram, 447 P.3d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “In contrast, his misdemeanor judgment and sentence states that the trial court found that Ingram “does not have the ability to pay legal financial obligations as imposed below.” CP at 381.”
State of Washington v. Benjamin G. Smith, 442 P.3d 265 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Instead, it is a penalty assessment governed by RCW 10.99.080. 4 No. 35708-2-III State v.”
State Of Washington v. Griffin Levi Howland (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The State attempts to distinguish Blazina by arguing that the domestic violence penalty in RCW 10.99.080 should be treated differently than discretionary LFOs imposed under the costs statute, RCW 10.”
State Of Washington v. Andres Ramirez Martinez (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
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.