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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.067 (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 and to enter a plea of not guilty, and the court may 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 3; 2001 c 94 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 46; 1983 c 156 s 1; 1969 c 75 s 1.]

Notes:

Rules of court: ER 410.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · 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 31× “When Haggard later pleaded guilty to burglary and arson, the trial court included prior class C felonies in his criminal history, finding that the dismissed misdemeanor conviction interrupted the washout period for those offenses.”
State v. Deskins, 322 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 5× “The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Setting the Probation Term That the Defendant Could Not Live with or Own Any Animals ¶15 The district court has the statutory authority to impose conditions of probation under RCW 3.66.067 and .068. District courts “may place the…”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 43 P.3d 502 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “District courts' authority to defer and suspend sentencing has been codified in RCW 3.66.067 and RCW 3.66.068, respectively.”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 146 Wash. 2d 124 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “District courts’ authority to defer and suspend sentencing has been codified in RCW 3.66.067 and RCW 3.66.068, respectively.”
State v. Richards, 559 P.3d 107 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 7× “The County argues that RCW 3.66.067 is an independent source of authority for sentencing and is sufficient in itself to give a district court the statutory authority to condition suspension of a sentence on surrendering a dog.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “This statute and its companions, former RCW 3.66.067 (1984) and RCW 3.66.069, form the district court’s probation jurisdiction.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “This statute and its companions, former RCW 3.66.067 (1984) and RCW 3.66.069, form the district court's probation jurisdiction.”
Gabriel Moran v. the Screening Pros, 923 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2019). “THE SCREENING PROS 27 defendant will get a suspended sentence, where the conviction will stand, or suspended imposition of sentence, where the charge will be dismissed following compliance over a period of time after the guilty plea with various conditions. Dismissals also occur…”
State v. Vinge, 795 P.2d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “In arguing that the district court's jurisdiction over deferred prosecutions is limited to 2 years, Vinge relies on RCW 3.66.067 and .068, which restrict the district court's postconviction authority to defer imposition of a sentence and place a defendant on probation.”
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). “050 Stands on Its Own and Is Not Limited to the Length of the Underlying Sentence ¶ 27 A DVNCO can survive independently of the term of probation if the district court retains postconviction jurisdiction over a defendant.”
State Of Washington v. David Brent Haggard, 442 P.3d 628 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7× “060 had a different legal effect than a dismissal under RCW 3.66.067, and the court should apply the rule of lenity in his favor.”
State v. Gallaher, 14 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “Gallaher had complied with the conditions of the deferred sentence, the State nonetheless claims the court could not dismiss the conviction because Mr.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
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.