Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.66
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.065 (2026)

Assessment of punishment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If a defendant is found guilty, a judge holding office pursuant to chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW, or chapter 35.20 RCW, and not the jury, shall assess punishment, notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 10.04.100. If the judge determines that the punishment authorized is inadequate compared to the gravity of the offense he or she may order such defendant to enter recognizance to appear in the superior court of the county and may also recognize the witnesses and shall proceed as a committing magistrate.
[ 1984 c 258 s 45; 1975 c 29 s 1; 1965 ex.s. c 110 s 7.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Sentence and judgment: Rules of court: CrRLJ 7.2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1974–2003 · leading case: Mortell v. State, 118 Wash. App. 846 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mortell v. State, 118 Wash. App. 846 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Because both courts are authorized to impose the same maximum sentence, RCW 3.66.065 is inapplicable to this determination.”
State v. Young, 523 P.2d 934 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “RCW 3.66.065 provides in part: If such justice determines that the punishment he is authorized to assess is inadequate to the gravity of the offense he may order such defendant to enter recognizance to appear in the superior court .”
Mortell v. State, 78 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “NOTES [1] Because both courts are authorized to impose the same maximum sentence, RCW 3.66.065 is inapplicable to this determination.”
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.