Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.65
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.65.030 (2026)

Transcript or abstract of conviction record certified—As prima facie evidence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The director of the department of licensing shall certify a transcript or abstract of the record of convictions and findings of traffic infractions as maintained by the department of licensing of any person whose record brings him or her within the definition of an habitual offender, as defined in RCW 46.65.020, to the hearing officer appointed in the event a hearing is requested. Such transcript or abstract may be admitted as evidence in any hearing or court proceeding and shall be prima facie evidence that the person named therein was duly convicted by the court wherein such conviction or holding was made of each offense shown by such transcript or abstract; and if such person denies any of the facts as stated therein, he or she shall have the burden of proving that such fact is untrue.
[ 1983 c 209 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 95; 1979 c 62 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 284 s 5.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Severability—1979 c 62: See note following RCW 46.65.020.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 284: See note following RCW 46.65.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–2004 · leading case: State v. Gaddy, 152 Wash. 2d 64 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gaddy, 152 Wash. 2d 64 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 46.65.030 (DOL abstract of person’s driving record is presumed accurate, and it is the defendant’s burden to prove its inaccuracy).”
State v. Gaddy, 93 P.3d 872 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 46.65.030 (DOL abstract of person's driving record is presumed accurate, and it is the defendant's burden to prove its inaccuracy).”
State v. Malone, 511 P.2d 67 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “030 imposes upon the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles the duty to forward to the prosecuting attorney the transcript of a person’s conviction record when that person’s record brings him within the statutory definition of an habitual offender. RCW 46.65.”
State v. Scheffel, 514 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1973). “RCW 46.65.030 requires that the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles certify transcripts of any person coming within the definition of an habitual offender to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the person resides.”
State v. Kent, 549 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1976). “RCW 46.65.030 requires that the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles certify transcripts of any person coming within the definition of an habitual offender to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the person resides.”
Thurston Cnty. v. Gorton, 530 P.2d 309 (Wash. 1975). “RCW 46.65.030. RCW 46.65.040 uses the mandatory word “shall” and provides that: The prosecuting attorney upon receiving the aforesaid transcripts or abstracts from the director shall forthwith file a complaint against the person named therein as *137 being an habitual offender…”
Flory v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 527 P.2d 1318 (Wash. 1974). “The “hearing” involved here was certainly much different than what is provided in RCW 46.65.030, .040, .050, .060 for habitual traffic offenders.”
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.