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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.069 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Deferral of sentence and suspension of execution of sentence may be revoked if the defendant violates or fails to carry out any of the conditions of the deferral or suspension. Upon the revocation of the deferral or suspension, the court may impose the sentence previously suspended or any unexecuted portion thereof. In no case shall the court impose a sentence greater than the original sentence, with credit given for time served and money paid on fine and costs.
Any time before entering an order terminating probation, the court may revoke or modify its order suspending the imposition or execution of the sentence. Whenever the ends of justice will be served and when warranted by the reformation of the probationer, the court may terminate the period of probation and discharge the person so held.
[ 1983 c 156 s 3; 1969 c 75 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “067 (1984) and RCW 3.66.069, form the district court’s probation jurisdiction.”
State v. Granath, 415 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “RCW 3.66.069. The last statutory grant of authority that is relevant to this case is RCW 10.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “067 (1984) and RCW 3.66.069, form the district court's probation jurisdiction.”
Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 646 P.2d 128 (Wash. 1982). “" RCW 3.66.069. It should be noted, however, that while RCW 3.”
Fisher v. Clem, 607 P.2d 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “068 and RCW 3.66.069. 4 RCW 36.01.070 provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 72.”
City of Bellevue v. Hard, 928 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “_days jail and suspends] _days[J” But Hard argues that the five days in jail he was ordered to serve was the sentence and, therefore, under RCW 3.66.069, when his deferred sentence was revoked, the court could not order him to serve more time in jail, because he had already…”
City of Aberdeen v. Regan, 195 P.3d 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “340; RCW 3.66.069; RCW 9.95.230. See State v. Kuhn, 81 Wash.”
State v. Wilkerson, 31 P.3d 1194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The State correctly argues that the statutes defining the authority of district courts do not include the limitation proposed by Wilkerson. “Any time before entering an order terminating probation, the court may revoke or modify its order suspending the imposition or execution…”
City Of Tacoma, V Jason D. Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Finally, RCW 3.66.069 grants a municipal court the power to revoke a deferral or suspension of a sentence “if the defendant violates or fails to carry out any of the conditions of the deferral or suspension.”
City of Bellevue v. Hard, 928 P.2d 452 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “]" But Hard argues that the five days in jail he was ordered to serve was the sentence and, therefore, under RCW 3.66.069, when his deferred sentence was revoked, the court could not order him to serve more time in jail, because he had already served his five days.”
Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 619 P.2d 704 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “3 RCW 3.66.069 provides deferral and suspension of sentence may be revoked by the court if the defendant violates or fails to carry out any of the conditions of the deferral or suspension.”
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.