Wash. Rev. Code » Title 13 · Chapter 13.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200 (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) When a respondent fails to comply with an order of restitution, community supervision, or confinement of less than 30 days, the court upon motion of the prosecutor or its own motion, may modify the order after a hearing on the violation.
(2) The hearing shall afford the respondent the same due process of law as would be afforded an adult probationer. The court may issue a summons or a warrant to compel the respondent's appearance. The state shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the fact of the violation. The respondent shall have the burden of showing that the violation was not a willful refusal to comply with the terms of the order. If a respondent has failed to pay restitution or to perform community restitution hours, as required by the court, it shall be the respondent's burden to show that he or she did not have the means and could not reasonably have acquired the means to pay the restitution or to perform community restitution.
(3) If the court finds that a respondent has willfully violated the terms of an order pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it may impose a penalty of up to 30 days' confinement. Penalties for multiple violations occurring prior to the hearing shall not be aggregated to exceed 30 days' confinement. Regardless of the number of times a respondent is brought to court for violations of the terms of a single disposition order, the combined total number of days spent by the respondent in detention shall never exceed the maximum term to which an adult could be sentenced for the underlying offense.
(4) When a respondent has willfully violated the terms of a probation bond, the court may modify, revoke, or retain the probation bond as provided in RCW 13.40.054.
[ 2023 c 449 s 21; 2004 c 120 s 7; 2002 c 175 s 25; 1997 c 338 s 31; 1995 c 395 s 8; 1986 c 288 s 5; 1983 c 191 s 15; 1979 c 155 s 70; 1977 ex.s. c 291 s 74.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 449: See note following RCW 13.40.058.
Effective date—2004 c 120: See note following RCW 13.40.010.
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—1986 c 288: See note following RCW 43.185C.260.
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 50 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 1290 (Wash. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 1290 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 9× “The Court of Appeals remanded for modification of the order, interpreting RCW 13.40.200 as requiring the reduction of Martin's restitution and community service obligations by giving credit for the penalty of confinement.”
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 4× “1249; RCW 13.40.200. [48] Clerk's Papers, at 6-7.”
State v. May, 911 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “The juvenile court minutes relate the commissioner’s jurisdiction determination: The Court believes as long as the minor is given notice of the basis for [the] alleged violation & violation is brought on in a reasonable amount of time, the disposition of those violations need…”
State v. Martin, 670 P.2d 1082 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Counsel for Martin objected, arguing that RCW 13.40.200 requires the court to give credit for the confinement time by reducing the hours and restitution imposed by the original sentence.”
State v. Veazie, 98 P.3d 100 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 25× “RCW 13.40.200. RCW 13.40.200 provides in pertinent part: (3) If the court finds that a respondent has willfully violated the terms of an order pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it may impose a penalty of up to thirty days' confinement.”
State v. Bryant, 753 P.2d 523 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “He contends the court (1) erred in finding he violated a prior disposition order, and (2) lacked jurisdiction under RCW 13.40.200 to impose detention. We affirm.”
State v. Edgley, 966 P.2d 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “*481 ANALYSIS Consecutive Confinement Penalties Aaron Edgley and Jeffrey Scott Dodd contend that under RCW 13.40.200, the trial court erred when it imposed 30 days’ detention for violation of each disposition order, to run consecutively, when the underlying original sentences…”
In Re the Welfare of Hoffer, 659 P.2d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Under RCW 13.40.200, the court had jurisdiction to modify the order.”
State v. Lown, 116 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “On the court’s own motion, however, the commissioner elected to treat the violation as a community supervision violation under RCW 13.40.200. A community supervision violation, as distinct from the violation of the terms of a deferred disposition, allows the court considerable…”
State v. Murrin, 934 P.2d 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “15 The State argues that this interpretation of the statute leads to an unintended result whereby if the court, on its own motion, modifies a disposition order under RCW 13.40.200(1), 16 the State is thereafter precluded from filing an information for the new offense; or, in the…”
State v. Lown, 66 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “On the court's own motion, however, the commissioner elected to treat the violation as a community supervision violation under RCW 13.40.200. A community supervision violation, as distinct from the violation of the terms of a deferred disposition, allows the court considerable…”
State v. Clark, 958 P.2d 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Moreover, if the orders did state that two or five days’ detention would result if the juveniles violated the conditions, the orders would conflict with RCW 13.40.200. As Richard illustrates, after a probation officer reports that a juvenile has violated certain disposition…”
Show all 50 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(1) — 10 cases
State v. Murrin, 934 P.2d 728 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “15 The State argues that this interpretation of the statute leads to an unintended result whereby if the court, on its own motion, modifies a disposition order under RCW 13.40.200(1), 16 the State is thereafter precluded from filing an information for the new offense; or, in the…”
State v. Lown, 116 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “On the court’s own motion, however, the commissioner elected to treat the violation as a community supervision violation under RCW 13.40.200. A community supervision violation, as distinct from the violation of the terms of a deferred disposition, allows the court considerable…”
State v. Lown, 66 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “On the court's own motion, however, the commissioner elected to treat the violation as a community supervision violation under RCW 13.40.200. A community supervision violation, as distinct from the violation of the terms of a deferred disposition, allows the court considerable…”
State v. Clark, 958 P.2d 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Moreover, if the orders did state that two or five days’ detention would result if the juveniles violated the conditions, the orders would conflict with RCW 13.40.200. As Richard illustrates, after a probation officer reports that a juvenile has violated certain disposition…”
In Re the Welfare of Hoffer, 659 P.2d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Under RCW 13.40.200, the court had jurisdiction to modify the order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(2) — 5 cases
State v. May, 911 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The juvenile court minutes relate the commissioner’s jurisdiction determination: The Court believes as long as the minor is given notice of the basis for [the] alleged violation & violation is brought on in a reasonable amount of time, the disposition of those violations need…”
State v. Martin, 670 P.2d 1082 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Counsel for Martin objected, arguing that RCW 13.40.200 requires the court to give credit for the confinement time by reducing the hours and restitution imposed by the original sentence.”
State of Washington v. M.N.H., 495 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. D.D.-H., 385 P.3d 283 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State Of Washington v. D.d-h. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(3) — 16 cases
State v. Veazie, 98 P.3d 100 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 13.40.200. RCW 13.40.200 provides in pertinent part: (3) If the court finds that a respondent has willfully violated the terms of an order pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it may impose a penalty of up to thirty days' confinement.”
State v. Edgley, 966 P.2d 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*481 ANALYSIS Consecutive Confinement Penalties Aaron Edgley and Jeffrey Scott Dodd contend that under RCW 13.40.200, the trial court erred when it imposed 30 days’ detention for violation of each disposition order, to run consecutively, when the underlying original sentences…”
State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 1290 (Wash. 1984). “The Court of Appeals remanded for modification of the order, interpreting RCW 13.40.200 as requiring the reduction of Martin's restitution and community service obligations by giving credit for the penalty of confinement.”
State v. Veazie, 123 Wash. App. 392 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Cook, 679 P.2d 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(3)(a) — 6 cases
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “1249; RCW 13.40.200. [48] Clerk's Papers, at 6-7.”
State v. Bush, 659 P.2d 1127 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).
In Re the Welfare of Hoffer, 659 P.2d 1124 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “Under RCW 13.40.200, the court had jurisdiction to modify the order.”
State v. Edgley, 966 P.2d 381 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “*481 ANALYSIS Consecutive Confinement Penalties Aaron Edgley and Jeffrey Scott Dodd contend that under RCW 13.40.200, the trial court erred when it imposed 30 days’ detention for violation of each disposition order, to run consecutively, when the underlying original sentences…”
State v. W.C.F., 985 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(4) — 1 case
State v. Jackson, 829 P.2d 1136 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.200(l) — 2 cases
State v. Sanchez, 869 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Bennett, 821 P.2d 499 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
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.