Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.320 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
After a conviction, the court may impose sentence by suspending all or a portion of the defendant's sentence or by deferring the sentence of the defendant and may place the defendant on probation for a period of no longer than two years and prescribe the conditions thereof. A defendant who has been sentenced, or whose sentence has been deferred, and who then fails to appear for any hearing to address the defendant's compliance with the terms of probation when ordered to do so by the court, shall have the term of probation tolled until such time as the defendant makes his or her presence known to the court on the record. During the time of the deferral, the court may, for good cause shown, permit a defendant to withdraw the plea of guilty, permit the defendant to enter a plea of not guilty, and dismiss the charges. A court shall not defer sentence for an offense sentenced under RCW 46.61.5055.
[ 2013 2nd sp.s. c 35 s 5; 2001 c 94 s 4; 1984 c 258 s 116; 1983 c 156 s 5; 1961 c 299 s 81.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Application—1984 c 258 ss 101-139: See note following RCW 3.50.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: State v. Haggard, 461 P.3d 1159 (Wash. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Haggard, 461 P.3d 1159 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 3× “A functionally identical statute outlines the same procedures for municipal court under RCW 3.50.320. The parties treat RCW 3.66.”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 43 P.3d 502 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “Such courts have jurisdiction over probationers pursuant to RCW 3.50.320 and RCW 3.50.330, which until recently read: After a conviction, the court may defer sentencing and place the defendant on probation and prescribe the conditions thereof, but in no case shall it extend for…”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 146 Wash. 2d 124 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “Such courts have jurisdiction over probationers pursuant to RCW 3.50.320 and RCW 3.50.330, which until recently read: After a conviction, the court may defer sentencing and place the defendant on probation and prescribe the conditions thereof, but in no case shall it extend for…”
City of Seattle v. Fuller, 300 P.3d 340 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “We said that these powers must come expressly from the legislature and that the justice of the peace had apparently acted under RCW 3.50.320, which the court read as pertaining only to municipal court sentence deferrals.”
State v. Gnewuch, 316 Neb. 47 (Neb. 2024). “2 (2008); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 3.50.320 . and 3.”
State Of Washington v. David Brent Haggard, 442 P.3d 628 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “Courts of limited jurisdiction may dismiss misdemeanor offenses under RCW 3.50.320 and RCW 3.66.067.1 On a showing of good cause during a deferred sentence, the court may allow the defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, enter a plea of not guilty, and dismiss the charges.”
State Ex Rel. Woodhouse v. Dore, 416 P.2d 670 (Wash. 1966). “2450 (RCW 3.50.320), but we read that section as designed particularly for and applicable to only municipal courts.”
United States v. Victor Gonzalez Vazquez, 719 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2013). “A defendant who has been sentenced, or whose sentence has been deferred, and who then fails to appear for any hearing to address the defendant's compliance with the terms of probation when ordered to do so by the court, shall have the term of probation tolled until such time as…”
State Of Washington v. S.g., 451 P.3d 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 3.50.320; RCW 3.66.067; State v. Haggard, 9 Wn.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “First, the question of whether the district court had authority to defer sentences was not argued. Moreover, this court assumed without deciding that the district judge did have authority to defer sentencing under RCW 3.”
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.