Wash. Rev. Code » Title 69 · Chapter 69.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.430 (2026)

Additional fine for certain felony violations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every adult offender convicted of a felony violation of RCW 69.50.401 through 69.50.4013, 69.50.4015, 69.50.402, 69.50.403, 69.50.406, 69.50.407, 69.50.410, or 69.50.415 must be fined one thousand dollars in addition to any other fine or penalty imposed. Unless the court finds the adult offender to be indigent, this additional fine may not be suspended or deferred by the court.
(2) On a second or subsequent conviction for violation of any of the laws listed in subsection (1) of this section, the adult offender must be fined two thousand dollars in addition to any other fine or penalty imposed. Unless the court finds the adult offender to be indigent, this additional fine may not be suspended or deferred by the court.
(3) In addition to any other civil or criminal penalty, every person who violates or causes another to violate RCW 69.50.401 by distributing, dispensing, manufacturing, displaying for sale, offering for sale, attempting to sell, or selling to a purchaser any product that contains any amount of any synthetic cannabinoid, as identified in RCW 69.50.204, must be fined not less than ten thousand dollars and not more than five hundred thousand dollars. If, however, the person who violates or causes another to violate RCW 69.50.401 by distributing, dispensing, manufacturing, displaying for sale, offering for sale, attempting to sell, or selling any product that contains any amount of any synthetic cannabinoid, as identified in RCW 69.50.204, to a purchaser under the age of eighteen, the minimum penalty is twenty-five thousand dollars if the person is at least two years older than the minor. Unless the court finds the person to be indigent, this additional fine may not be suspended or deferred by the court.
[ 2015 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 1204; 2015 c 265 s 36; 2003 c 53 s 345; 1989 c 271 s 106.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—Effective dates—2015 2nd sp.s. c 4: See notes following RCW 69.50.334.
Finding—Intent—2015 c 265: See note following RCW 13.50.010.
Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Application—1989 c 271 ss 101-111: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Severability—1989 c 271: See note following RCW 9.94A.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: State v. Mayer, 120 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mayer, 120 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 19× “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State v. Mayer, 86 P.3d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 21× “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State of Washington v. Ronald Aaron Malone, 376 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The court also ordered Malone to pay the unspecified costs of incarceration with a cap of $500, as well as any future medical costs that Yakima County may incur upon his behalf.”
State v. Cowin, 116 Wash. App. 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “The State cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order Kelli Cowin to pay a $1,000 fine under RCW 69.50.430(1). We affirm the convictions but remand for imposition of the mandatory fine.”
State v. Baldwin, 818 P.2d 1116 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “2 RCW 69.50.430(1) provides a $1,000 fine in addition to other penalties for violation of certain provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.”
State v. Cowin, 67 P.3d 1108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “The State cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order Kelli Cowin to pay a $1000 fine under RCW 69.50.430(1). We affirm the convictions but remand for imposition of the mandatory fine.”
State of Washington v. Lisa Marie Mumm (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Former RCW 69.50.430 declares: (1) Every person convicted of a felony violation ofRCW 69.”
State of Washington v. Eli Gallegos (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Unless the court finds the adult offender to be indigent, this additional fine may not be suspended or deferred by the court.”
State of Washington v. Roberta Bresnahan Jones (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “The judgment and sentence form maintains a place to check “deferred due to indigence RCW 69.50.430.” CP at 153. Thus, we conclude that, assuming Roberta Jones to be indigent, the sentencing court could have waived the penalty.”
State of Washington v. Crystal Rae Purcell (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The trial court also imposed a $1,000 drug fine under RCW 69.50.430. Mandatory LFOs are required, regardless of an inability to pay.”
State of Washington v. Felipe Ernesto Gonzalez-Hernandez (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Gonzalez-Hernandez RCW 69.50.430. The amount of the fine was due to it being Gonzalez-Hernandez’s third VUCSA 3 offense.”
State of Washington v. Markham Michael Walker Welch (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “RCW 69.50.430(2). This fine is mandatory.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.430(1) — 12 cases
State v. Mayer, 120 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State v. Cowin, 116 Wash. App. 752 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “The State cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order Kelli Cowin to pay a $1,000 fine under RCW 69.50.430(1). We affirm the convictions but remand for imposition of the mandatory fine.”
State v. Baldwin, 818 P.2d 1116 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “2 RCW 69.50.430(1) provides a $1,000 fine in addition to other penalties for violation of certain provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.”
State v. Mayer, 86 P.3d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State v. Cowin, 67 P.3d 1108 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “The State cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order Kelli Cowin to pay a $1000 fine under RCW 69.50.430(1). We affirm the convictions but remand for imposition of the mandatory fine.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.430(2) — 9 cases
State v. Mayer, 120 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State v. Mayer, 86 P.3d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Mandatory Nature of RCW 69.50.430 The issue is whether the drug fines ($1,000 or $2,000) authorized under RCW 69.”
State of Washington v. Markham Michael Walker Welch (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 69.50.430(2). This fine is mandatory.”
State Of Washington, Resp/cross-app v. Jonathan S. Wood, App/cross-resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Eli Gallegos (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Unless the court finds the adult offender to be indigent, this additional fine may not be suspended or deferred by the court.”
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.