Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.40

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The respondent shall be advised of the allegations in the information and shall be required to plead guilty or not guilty to the allegation(s). The state or the respondent may make preliminary motions up to the time of the plea.
(2) If the respondent pleads guilty, the court may proceed with disposition or may continue the case for a dispositional hearing. If the respondent denies guilt, an adjudicatory hearing date shall be set. The court shall notify the parent, guardian, or custodian who has custody of a juvenile described in the charging document of the dispositional or adjudicatory hearing and shall require attendance.
(3) At the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt.
(4) The court shall record its findings of fact and shall enter its decision upon the record. Such findings shall set forth the evidence relied upon by the court in reaching its decision.
(5) If the respondent is found not guilty he or she shall be released from detention.
(6) If the respondent is found guilty the court may immediately proceed to disposition or may continue the case for a dispositional hearing. Notice of the time and place of the continued hearing may be given in open court. If notice is not given in open court to a party, the party and the parent, guardian, or custodian who has custody of the juvenile shall be notified by mail of the time and place of the continued hearing.
(7) The court following an adjudicatory hearing may request that a predisposition study be prepared to aid the court in its evaluation of the matters relevant to disposition of the case.
(8) The disposition hearing shall be held within fourteen days after the adjudicatory hearing or plea of guilty unless good cause is shown for further delay, or within twenty-one days if the juvenile is not held in a detention facility, unless good cause is shown for further delay.
(9) In sentencing an offender, the court shall use the disposition standards in effect on the date of the offense.
(10) A person notified under this section who fails without reasonable cause to appear and abide by the order of the court may be proceeded against as for contempt of court. In determining whether a parent, guardian, or custodian had reasonable cause not to appear, the court may consider all factors relevant to the person's ability to appear as summoned.
[ 1997 c 338 s 22; 1981 c 299 s 10; 1979 c 155 s 65; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 67.]

Notes:

Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Effective date—Severability—1979 c 155: See notes following RCW 13.04.011.
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: State v. Martin
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Martin (1999) wash · cites it 27× “Defendant Keith Martin contends that his case should have been dismissed due to the State’s failure to comply with his right to a speedy disposition, pursuant to RCW 13.40.130 and JuCR 7.12(a) or in the alternative that the court lost jurisdiction to sentence him because the…”
State v. Mollichi (1997) wash · cites it 13× “150(3)(f) As the State did not argue this waiver issue below as well, we decline to address an argument the State has not advanced.”
State v. Mollichi (1997) wash · cites it 12× “150(3)0) and RCW 13.40.130(8)/JuCR 7.12(a) is invalid unless the juvenile waives the statutory requirements.”
State v. Eugene W. (1985) washctapp · cites it 12× “contends the trial court erred in not dismissing the charge when the disposition hearing was not held within the time limits set in RCW 13.40.130(8) and JuCR 7.12(a). The Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, RCW 13.”
State v. Carlson (1992) washctapp · cites it 5× “12(a) 12 and RCW 13.40.130(8), 13 his sentencing should have been indefinitely stayed or the case dismissed.”
State v. Rice (1983) wash · cites it 2× “After a plea of guilty or a finding by the court that the prosecution has proved the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt (RCW 13.40.130), a disposition hearing is held.”
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp · cites it 3× “, RCW 13.40.130(3) (“[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the *923 allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp · cites it 3× “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt"); RCW 13.”
State v. Linares (1994) washctapp · cites it 3× “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
State v. Fellers (1984) washctapp · cites it 2× “11(c) and RCW 13.40.130(4) impose a requirement that cannot be ignored.”
State v. McDaniels (1984) washctapp · cites it 2× “11(c); see also RCW 13.40.130(4). 2 While the trial court's written findings here are conclusory, they may be supplemented by undisputed evidence from the record.”
State v. Frazier (1983) wash “The juvenile court can, of course, continue to require juvenile defendants to enter pleas of guilty or not guilty under RCW 13.40.130(1). In all other respects, the juvenile court retains plenary powers to perform any procedural requirements necessary to the efficient processing…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(1) — 1 case
State v. Frazier (1983) wash “The juvenile court can, of course, continue to require juvenile defendants to enter pleas of guilty or not guilty under RCW 13.40.130(1). In all other respects, the juvenile court retains plenary powers to perform any procedural requirements necessary to the efficient processing…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(2) — 4 cases
State v. JH (1999) washctapp
State v. J.H. (1999) washctapp
State v. Haws (2003) washctapp
State v. Haws (2003) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(3) — 4 cases
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) (“[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the *923 allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt"); RCW 13.”
State v. Linares (1994) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
State v. Mershon (1986) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(3)(f) — 1 case
State v. Mollichi (1997) wash “150(3)(f) As the State did not argue this waiver issue below as well, we decline to address an argument the State has not advanced.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(4) — 7 cases
State v. Fellers (1984) washctapp “11(c) and RCW 13.40.130(4) impose a requirement that cannot be ignored.”
State v. McDaniels (1984) washctapp “11(c); see also RCW 13.40.130(4). 2 While the trial court's written findings here are conclusory, they may be supplemented by undisputed evidence from the record.”
State v. Brown (1981) washctapp
State v. Commodore (1984) washctapp
State v. Radcliff (1990) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(6) — 2 cases
State v. Martin (1999) wash “Defendant Keith Martin contends that his case should have been dismissed due to the State’s failure to comply with his right to a speedy disposition, pursuant to RCW 13.40.130 and JuCR 7.12(a) or in the alternative that the court lost jurisdiction to sentence him because the…”
State v. Martin (1999) wash
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(7) — 4 cases
State v. Murphy (1983) washctapp
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) (“[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the *923 allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
State v. Moro (2003) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt"); RCW 13.”
State v. Linares (1994) washctapp “, RCW 13.40.130(3) ("[a]t the adjudicatory hearing it shall be the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt”); RCW 13.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(8) — 10 cases
State v. Martin (1999) wash “Defendant Keith Martin contends that his case should have been dismissed due to the State’s failure to comply with his right to a speedy disposition, pursuant to RCW 13.40.130 and JuCR 7.12(a) or in the alternative that the court lost jurisdiction to sentence him because the…”
State v. Mollichi (1997) wash “150(3)0) and RCW 13.40.130(8)/JuCR 7.12(a) is invalid unless the juvenile waives the statutory requirements.”
State v. Mollichi (1997) wash “150(3)(f) As the State did not argue this waiver issue below as well, we decline to address an argument the State has not advanced.”
State v. Eugene W. (1985) washctapp “contends the trial court erred in not dismissing the charge when the disposition hearing was not held within the time limits set in RCW 13.40.130(8) and JuCR 7.12(a). The Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, RCW 13.”
State v. Carlson (1992) washctapp “12(a) 12 and RCW 13.40.130(8), 13 his sentencing should have been indefinitely stayed or the case dismissed.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.130(9) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. S.g. (2019) washctapp
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.