Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.20.255 (2026)

Deferral or suspension of sentences—Probation—Maximum term—Transfer to another state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, judges of the municipal court, in their discretion, shall have the power in all criminal proceedings within their jurisdiction including violations of city ordinances, to defer imposition of any sentence, suspend all or part of any sentence including installment payment of fines, fix the terms of any such deferral or suspension, and provide for such probation as in their opinion is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of the case, but in no case shall it extend for more than five years from the date of conviction for a defendant to be sentenced for a domestic violence offense or under RCW 46.61.5055 and two years from the date of conviction for all other offenses. 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. However, the jurisdiction period in this section does not apply to the enforcement of orders issued under RCW 46.20.720. Any time before entering an order terminating probation, the court may modify or revoke its order suspending or deferring the imposition or execution of the sentence. For the purposes of this subsection, "domestic violence offense" means a crime listed in RCW 10.99.020 that is not a felony offense.
(2)(a) If a defendant whose sentence has been deferred requests permission to travel or transfer to another state, the director of probation services or a designee thereof shall determine whether such request is subject to RCW 9.94A.745, the interstate compact for adult offender supervision. If such request is subject to the compact, the director or designee shall:
(i) Notify the department of corrections of the defendant's request;
(ii) Provide the department of corrections with the supporting documentation it requests for processing an application for transfer;
(iii) Notify the defendant of the fee due to the department of corrections for processing an application under the compact;
(iv) Cease supervision of the defendant while another state supervises the defendant pursuant to the compact;
(v) Resume supervision if the defendant returns to this state before the period of deferral expires.
(b) The defendant shall receive credit for time served while being supervised by another state.
(c) If the probationer is returned to the state at the request of the receiving state under rules of the interstate compact for adult offender supervision, the department of corrections is responsible for the cost of returning the probationer.
(d) The state of Washington, the department of corrections and its employees, and any city and its employees are not liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission authorized or required under this section unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence.
(3) Judges of the municipal court shall not defer sentence for an offense sentenced under RCW 46.61.5055.
[ 2013 2nd sp.s. c 35 s 7; 2010 c 274 s 407; 2005 c 400 s 5; 2001 c 94 s 3; 1999 c 56 s 3; 1983 c 156 s 8; 1969 ex.s. c 147 s 9.]

Notes:

Intent—2010 c 274: See note following RCW 10.31.100.
Application—Effective date—2005 c 400: See notes following RCW 9.94A.74504.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: City of Spokane v. Marquette, 43 P.3d 502 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 43 P.3d 502 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “RCW 35.20.255 applies to the municipal courts of Washington cities with population over 400,000.”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 146 Wash. 2d 124 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “RCW 35.20.255 applies to the municipal courts of Washington cities with population over 400,000.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller, 300 P.3d 340 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 6× “¶19 The city also argues that restitution may be implied under the grant of authority to fix the terms of a defer *275 ral or suspension of sentence under RCW 35.20.255. RCW 35.20.255(1) states: Judges of the municipal court, in their discretion, shall have the power in all…”
Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 646 P.2d 128 (Wash. 1982). “In the latter regard RCW 35.20.255 specifically authorizes (1) the sentence to be suspended, (2) empowers the municipal judge to fix the times and conditions of the suspension, and, in addition, (3) authorizes the municipal judge to provide for such probation and parole (i.”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 14 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The municipal court’s power to suspend his sentence therefore comes from RCW 35.20.255. Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 34 P.3d 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “In response to the City’s argument that the judgment in the criminal proceeding forever prevents a vicious dog from being returned to its owner Rabon cites RCW 35.20.255, providing that a municipal court’s power to enforce conditions of probation continues only for two years…”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 34 P.3d 821 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “NOTES [1] In response to the City's argument that the judgment in the criminal proceeding forever prevents a vicious dog from being returned to its owner Rabon cites RCW 35.20.255, providing that a municipal court's power to enforce conditions of probation continues only for two…”
City Of Seattle v. Derek Makasini, 480 P.3d 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 13× “The City claimed that the period of supervision was tolled by the issuance of the bench warrant in 2015 and defense objected based on the plain language of RCW 35.20.255. The municipal court ruled that the warrant issued ex parte tolled the period of probation and imposed a jail…”
City of Spokane v. Marquette, 14 P.3d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The municipal court's power to suspend his sentence therefore comes from RCW 35.20.255. Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “ion, shall have the power in all criminal proceedings within their jurisdiction including violations of city ordinances, to defer imposition of any sentence, suspend all or part of any sentence including installment payment of fines, fix the terms of any such deferral or…”
City of Yakima v. Heather R. Killion (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Killion’s sentence were waived rather than terminated, we need not expand the scope of review to decide the legislative intent of “completed” within the meaning of RCW 9.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 35.20.255(1): 2 cases
City of Seattle v. Fuller, 300 P.3d 340 (Wash. 2013). “¶19 The city also argues that restitution may be implied under the grant of authority to fix the terms of a defer *275 ral or suspension of sentence under RCW 35.20.255. RCW 35.20.255(1) states: Judges of the municipal court, in their discretion, shall have the power in all…”
City of Yakima v. Heather R. Killion (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Killion’s sentence were waived rather than terminated, we need not expand the scope of review to decide the legislative intent of “completed” within the meaning of RCW 9.”
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.