Wash. Rev. Code » Title 72 · Chapter 72.09
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The department shall adopt, by rule, a system that clearly links an inmate's behavior and participation in available education and work programs with the receipt or denial of earned early release days and other privileges. The system shall include increases or decreases in the degree of liberty granted the inmate within the programs operated by the department, access to or withholding of privileges available within correctional institutions, and recommended increases or decreases in the number of earned early release days that an inmate can earn for good conduct and good performance.
(2) Earned early release days shall be recommended by the department as a reward for accomplishment. The system shall be fair, measurable, and understandable to offenders, staff, and the public. At least once in each twelve-month period, the department shall inform the offender in writing as to his or her conduct and performance. This written evaluation shall include reasons for awarding or not awarding recommended earned early release days for good conduct and good performance. An inmate is not eligible to receive earned early release days during any time in which he or she refuses to participate in an available education or work program into which he or she has been placed under RCW 72.09.460.
(3) The department shall provide each offender in its custody a written description of the system created under this section.
[ 1995 1st sp.s. c 19 s 6; 1981 c 136 s 17.]

Notes:

Findings—Purpose—Short title—Severability—Effective date—1995 1st sp.s. c 19: See notes following RCW 72.09.450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: State v. Brown, 142 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Brown, 142 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 14× “The judge also expressed concern the serious infraction rules adopted by the DOC were not promulgated correctly, noting: [The statute] provides that the rules be “adopted under RCW 72.09.130.” When you look at the serious infractions, they were passed under RCW 72.”
State v. Brown, 11 P.3d 818 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 14× “The judge also expressed concern the serious infraction rules adopted by the DOC were not promulgated correctly, noting: [The statute] provides that the rules be "adopted under RCW 72.09.130." When you look at the serious infractions, they were passed under RCW 72.”
State v. Simmons, 98 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 8× “Rather, *791 we held that the DOC erred by failing to promulgate its serious infraction rules under RCW 72.09.130 [4] following the enactment of RCW 9.”
State v. Simmons, 152 Wash. 2d 450 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 8× “Rather, we held that the DOC erred by failing to promulgate its serious infraction rules under RCW 72.09.130 4 following the enactment of RCW 9.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of King, 49 P.3d 854 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 7× “210, 5 or RCW 72.09.130. 6 He argues the 1995 amendment impliedly amended or revised these statutes without setting them forth at full length and is, therefore, unconstitutional under article II, section 37.”
State v. Ramos, 202 P.3d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “070(2) did not define "serious infraction," it directed the DOC to its own rule-making process under RCW 72.09.130. RCW 72.09.130(1), in contrast to the offender risk classification statute at issue here, provides direction to the DOC, in that rules will be adopted by "a system…”
State v. Ramos, 149 Wash. App. 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “070(2) did not define “serious infraction,” it directed the DOC to its own rule-making process under RCW 72.09.130. RCW 72.09.130(1), in contrast to the offender risk classification statute at issue here, provides direction to the DOC, in that rules will be adopted *275 by “a…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Dowell, 674 P.2d 666 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “Dowell next argues, however, that the State has created a liberty interest warranting Fourteenth Amendment protection through statute and regulation, specifically RCW 72.09.130 and WAC 275-88-105(2)(f). Liberty interests cognizable under the due process clause have been…”
In Re Garcia, 24 P.3d 1091 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Moreover, RCW 72.09.130 explicitly requires DOC-operated state correctional facilities to adopt a system linking an inmate's behavior and participation in available education and work programs with the receipt or denial of earned early release days and other privileges.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Garcia, 106 Wash. App. 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Moreover, RCW 72.09.130 explicitly requires DOC-operated state correctional facilities to adopt a system linking an inmate’s behavior and participation in available education and work programs with the receipt or denial of earned early release days and other privileges.”
In Re King, 49 P.3d 854 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 7× “210, [5] or RCW 72.09.130. [6] He argues the 1995 amendment impliedly amended or revised these statutes without setting them forth at full length and is, therefore, unconstitutional under article II, section 37.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Forbis, 113 Wash. App. 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “[ 35 ] In 1995, the legislature amended RCW 72.09.130 as follows: “An inmate is not eligible to receive earned early release days during any time in which he or she refuses to participate in an available education or work program into which he or she has been placed under…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.130(1) — 11 cases
State v. Brown, 142 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2000). “The judge also expressed concern the serious infraction rules adopted by the DOC were not promulgated correctly, noting: [The statute] provides that the rules be “adopted under RCW 72.09.130.” When you look at the serious infractions, they were passed under RCW 72.”
State v. Brown, 11 P.3d 818 (Wash. 2000). “The judge also expressed concern the serious infraction rules adopted by the DOC were not promulgated correctly, noting: [The statute] provides that the rules be "adopted under RCW 72.09.130." When you look at the serious infractions, they were passed under RCW 72.”
State v. Ramos, 202 P.3d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “070(2) did not define "serious infraction," it directed the DOC to its own rule-making process under RCW 72.09.130. RCW 72.09.130(1), in contrast to the offender risk classification statute at issue here, provides direction to the DOC, in that rules will be adopted by "a system…”
State v. Ramos, 149 Wash. App. 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “070(2) did not define “serious infraction,” it directed the DOC to its own rule-making process under RCW 72.09.130. RCW 72.09.130(1), in contrast to the offender risk classification statute at issue here, provides direction to the DOC, in that rules will be adopted *275 by “a…”
In Re Garcia, 24 P.3d 1091 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Moreover, RCW 72.09.130 explicitly requires DOC-operated state correctional facilities to adopt a system linking an inmate's behavior and participation in available education and work programs with the receipt or denial of earned early release days and other privileges.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 72.09.130(2) — 3 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of King, 49 P.3d 854 (Wash. 2002). “210, 5 or RCW 72.09.130. 6 He argues the 1995 amendment impliedly amended or revised these statutes without setting them forth at full length and is, therefore, unconstitutional under article II, section 37.”
State v. Brown, 977 P.2d 1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
In Re King, 49 P.3d 854 (Wash. 2002). “210, [5] or RCW 72.09.130. [6] He argues the 1995 amendment impliedly amended or revised these statutes without setting them forth at full length and is, therefore, unconstitutional under article II, section 37.”
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.