Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The standard range disposition for a juvenile adjudicated of an offense is determined according to RCW 13.40.0357.

(a) When the court sentences an offender to a local sanction as provided in RCW 13.40.0357 option A, the court shall impose a determinate disposition within the standard ranges, except as provided in subsection (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section. The disposition may be comprised of one or more local sanctions.

(b) When the court sentences an offender to a standard range as provided in RCW 13.40.0357 option A that includes a term of confinement exceeding thirty days, commitment shall be to the department for the standard range of confinement, except as provided in subsection (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section.

(2) If the court concludes, and enters reasons for its conclusion, that disposition within the standard range would effectuate a manifest injustice the court shall impose a disposition outside the standard range, as indicated in option D of RCW 13.40.0357. The court's finding of manifest injustice shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

A disposition outside the standard range shall be determinate and shall be comprised of confinement or community supervision, or a combination thereof. When a judge finds a manifest injustice and imposes a sentence of confinement exceeding thirty days, the court shall sentence the juvenile to a maximum term, and the provisions of RCW 13.40.030(2) shall be used to determine the range. A disposition outside the standard range is appealable under RCW 13.40.230 by the state or the respondent. A disposition within the standard range is not appealable under RCW 13.40.230.

(3) If a juvenile offender is found to have committed a sex offense, other than a sex offense that is also a serious violent offense as defined by RCW 9.94A.030, and has no history of a prior sex offense, the court may impose the special sex offender disposition alternative under RCW 13.40.162.

(4) If the juvenile offender is subject to a standard range disposition of local sanctions or 15 to 36 weeks of confinement and has not committed an A- or B+ offense, the court may impose the disposition alternative under RCW 13.40.165.

(5) If a juvenile is subject to a commitment of 15 to 65 weeks of confinement, the court may impose the disposition alternative under *RCW 13.40.167.

(6) When the offender is subject to a standard range commitment of 15 to 36 weeks and is ineligible for a suspended disposition alternative, a manifest injustice disposition below the standard range, special sex offender disposition alternative, chemical dependency disposition alternative, or mental health disposition alternative, the court in a county with a pilot program under **RCW 13.40.169 may impose the disposition alternative under **RCW 13.40.169.

(7) RCW 13.40.193 shall govern the disposition of any juvenile adjudicated of possessing a firearm in violation of RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(v) or any crime in which a special finding is entered that the juvenile was armed with a firearm.

(8) RCW 13.40.308 shall govern the disposition of any juvenile adjudicated of theft of a motor vehicle as defined under RCW 9A.56.065, possession of a stolen motor vehicle as defined under RCW 9A.56.068, taking a motor vehicle without permission in the first degree under RCW 9A.56.070, and taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree under RCW 9A.56.075.

(9) Whenever a juvenile offender is entitled to credit for time spent in detention prior to a dispositional order, the dispositional order shall specifically state the number of days of credit for time served.

(10) Except as provided under subsection (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section, or option B of RCW 13.40.0357, or RCW 13.40.127, the court shall not suspend or defer the imposition or the execution of the disposition.

(11) In no case shall the term of confinement imposed by the court at disposition exceed that to which an adult could be subjected for the same offense.

[ 2023 c 295 s 9; 2022 c 268 s 38; 2020 c 18 s 9; 2011 c 338 s 2; 2007 c 199 s 14. Prior: 2004 c 120 s 4; 2004 c 38 s 11; prior: 2003 c 378 s 3; 2003 c 53 s 99; 2002 c 175 s 22; 1999 c 91 s 2; prior: 1997 c 338 s 25; 1997 c 265 s 1; 1995 c 395 s 7; 1994 sp.s. c 7 s 523; 1992 c 45 s 6; 1990 c 3 s 302; 1989 c 407 s 4; 1983 c 191 s 8; 1981 c 299 s 13; 1979 c 155 s 68; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 70.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: *(1) RCW 13.40.167 was repealed by 2016 c 106 s 4.

**(2) RCW 13.40.169 expired July 1, 2005.

Findings—Intent—2023 c 295: See note following RCW 9.41.040.

Effective dates—2022 c 268: See note following RCW 7.105.010.

Explanatory statement—2020 c 18: See note following RCW 43.79A.040.

Findings—Intent—Short title—2007 c 199: See notes following RCW 9A.56.065.

Effective date—2004 c 120: See note following RCW 13.40.010.

Effective date—2004 c 38: See note following RCW 18.155.075.

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.

Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.

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.

Severability—1997 c 265: "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." [ 1997 c 265 s 9.]

Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.

Severability—Application—1992 c 45: See notes following RCW 9.94A.840.

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 161 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 21× “We therefore affirm and hold that juvenile court judges lack *460 statutory authority to suspend JJA dispositions, even manifest injustice JJA dispositions, unless the disposition fits under one of the specifically listed exemptions in RCW 13.40.160(10). FACTS ¶ 2 Bacon pleaded…”

State v. Beaver, 60 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 12× “[13] To correctly determine the authority for setting the minimum term, the appropriate statutes to examine are RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.030. RCW 13.40.”

State v. Beaver, 60 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 11× “13 To correctly determine the authority for setting the minimum term, the *346 appropriate statutes to examine are RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.030. RCW 13.40.”

State v. T.E.C., 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “asserts that several aggravating factors relied upon by the trial court are not supported by the record or do not support a manifest injustice disposition.”

State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 7× “RCW 13.40.160. The disposition standards are established by the juvenile disposition standards committee pursuant to RCW 13.”

State v. SH, 877 P.2d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “contends, this section prohibited the release of juveniles serving manifest injustice dispositions prior to serving the maximum term, portions of both RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.0357 would be meaningless, requiring the determination of a minimum term which had no purpose.”

State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “020(12) and RCW 13.40.160. Further at the disposition hearing, the court is empowered to receive and consider all relevant and material evidence including (1) recommendations from the prosecutor and counsel for the juvenile, (2) information and arguments offered by the parties…”

State v. Diaz-Cardona, 123 Wash. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “RCW 13.40.160. RCW 13.40.160(3) provides that “[w]hen a juvenile offender is found to have committed a sex offense, other than a sex offense that is also a serious violent offense as defined by RCW 9.”

State v. Bryan, 606 P.2d 1228 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “RCW 13.40.160. Bryan is now 15 years old.”

In Re the Welfare of Luft, 589 P.2d 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 7× “RCW 13.40.160 precludes appeal if the disposition is within the standard range.”

State v. Strong, 599 P.2d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “John Strong, age 16, seeks accelerated review of disposition orders outside the standard range prescribed by RCW 13.40.160. *791 On November 2, 1978, Strong entered a plea of guilty to burglary in the second degree.”

State v. M.S., 484 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 8× “A previous version of RCW 13.40.160, which generally governs the lengths of juvenile dispositions, stated that “where the appropriate standard range 21 State v.”

Show all 161 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(1) — 22 cases

State v. Duncan, 960 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

State v. Holland, 656 P.2d 1056 (Wash. 1983).

In Re the Pers. Restraint of Trambitas, 635 P.2d 122 (Wash. 1981).

State v. P., 686 P.2d 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

State v. Bourgeois, 866 P.2d 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(1)(a) — 3 cases

State v. M.S., 484 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2021). “A previous version of RCW 13.40.160, which generally governs the lengths of juvenile dispositions, stated that “where the appropriate standard range 21 State v.”

State v. W.C.F., 985 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

State v. WCF, 985 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(1)(b) — 2 cases

State of Washington v. D.K.V., 483 P.3d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

State v. TEC, 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(10) — 7 cases

State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018). “We therefore affirm and hold that juvenile court judges lack *460 statutory authority to suspend JJA dispositions, even manifest injustice JJA dispositions, unless the disposition fits under one of the specifically listed exemptions in RCW 13.40.160(10). FACTS ¶ 2 Bacon pleaded…”

State v. T.J.S.-M., 441 P.3d 1181 (Wash. 2019).

State Of Washington v. Evan Bacon, (dob 3/3/2000), 197 Wash. App. 772 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

State v. Mohamoud, 246 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(11) — 2 cases

State of Washington, Resp/Cross-App v. M.V., App/Cross-Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

State of Washington v. Dion Taries Jordan Baker (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(2) — 62 cases

State v. Beaver, 60 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2002). “13 To correctly determine the authority for setting the minimum term, the *346 appropriate statutes to examine are RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.030. RCW 13.40.”

State v. Beaver, 60 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2002). “[13] To correctly determine the authority for setting the minimum term, the appropriate statutes to examine are RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.030. RCW 13.40.”

State v. B.O.J., 449 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2019).

State v. T.E.C., 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “asserts that several aggravating factors relied upon by the trial court are not supported by the record or do not support a manifest injustice disposition.”

State v. Tai N., 127 Wash. App. 733 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(3) — 17 cases

State v. Diaz-Cardona, 123 Wash. App. 477 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 13.40.160. RCW 13.40.160(3) provides that “[w]hen a juvenile offender is found to have committed a sex offense, other than a sex offense that is also a serious violent offense as defined by RCW 9.”

State v. A.S., 65 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

State v. Diaz-Cardona, 98 P.3d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(3)(a) — 3 cases

State v. Diaz-Cardona, 98 P.3d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

State v. TEC, 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(3)(b) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(3)(b)(ii) — 2 cases

State v. TEC, 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(3)(b)(ix) — 2 cases

State v. TEC, 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4) — 17 cases

State v. Bird, 622 P.2d 1262 (Wash. 1980).

State v. Rhodes, 600 P.2d 1264 (Wash. 1979).

State v. Strong, 599 P.2d 20 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “John Strong, age 16, seeks accelerated review of disposition orders outside the standard range prescribed by RCW 13.40.160. *791 On November 2, 1978, Strong entered a plea of guilty to burglary in the second degree.”

State v. Wall, 729 P.2d 656 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4)(a) — 1 case

State v. Kravchuk, 936 P.2d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4)(a)(ii) — 2 cases

In Re the Welfare of Luft, 589 P.2d 314 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “RCW 13.40.160 precludes appeal if the disposition is within the standard range.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4)(b) — 1 case

State v. Wall, 729 P.2d 656 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4)(c) — 10 cases

State v. SH, 877 P.2d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “contends, this section prohibited the release of juveniles serving manifest injustice dispositions prior to serving the maximum term, portions of both RCW 13.40.160 and RCW 13.40.0357 would be meaningless, requiring the determination of a minimum term which had no purpose.”

State v. Sledge, 947 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1997).

State v. Payne, 795 P.2d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).

State v. Beard, 694 P.2d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Sledge, 947 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(4)(e) — 1 case

State v. E.J.H., 830 P.2d 375 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(5) — 19 cases

State v. Howell, 833 P.2d 1385 (Wash. 1992).

State v. Heiskell, 916 P.2d 366 (Wash. 1996).

State v. Heiskell, 129 Wash. 2d 113 (Wash. 1996).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(6) — 5 cases

State v. L.W., 6 P.3d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

State v. A.S., 65 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

State Of Washington v. D.j.m., L.d.m., & L.k.m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

State v. LW, 6 P.3d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(7) — 6 cases

State v. A.S., 65 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

State v. Taylor, 709 P.2d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Ashbaker, 919 P.2d 619 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Miller, 776 P.2d 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(8) — 7 cases

State v. Lopez, 20 P.3d 978 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Clark, 958 P.2d 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

State v. A.S., 65 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(9) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160(a) — 1 case

State v. Diaz-Cardona, 98 P.3d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

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.