Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.92.090 (2026)

Habitual criminals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person convicted in this state of any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, or of petit larceny, or of any felony, who shall previously have been convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of any crime which under the laws of this state would amount to a felony, or who shall previously have been twice convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of petit larceny, or of any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, shall be adjudged to be an habitual criminal and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than ten years.
Every person convicted in this state of any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, or of petit larceny, or of any felony, who shall previously have been twice convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of any crime which under the laws of this state would amount to a felony, or who shall previously have been four times convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of petit larceny, or of any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for life.
[ 1992 c 7 s 18; 1909 c 249 s 34; 1903 c 86 ss 1, 2; RRS s 2286.]

Notes:

Applicability—1984 c 209: See RCW 9.92.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 144 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: State v. Lee, 558 P.2d 236 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lee, 558 P.2d 236 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 14× “In September 1973, appellant was charged and convicted of robbery.”
State v. Fain, 617 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 10× “Following his conviction, he appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals, asserting that, under the circumstances of his case, *389 life in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution and Const.”
State v. Manussier, 921 P.2d 473 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 8× “Lee rejected a similar challenge to the former habitual criminal statute (RCW 9.92.090), which imposed a life sentence for a defendant's third felony conviction.”
State v. Pettitt, 609 P.2d 1364 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 12× “Petitioner also challenges his life sentence imposed pursuant to the habitual criminal statute, RCW 9.92.090. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980). · cites it 4× “[18] See Wash. Rev. Code § 9.92.090 (1976); W. Va.”
State v. Manussier, 129 Wash. 2d 652 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 7× “Lee rejected a similar challenge to the former habitual criminal statute (RCW 9.92.090), which imposed a life sentence for a defendant’s third felony conviction.”
State v. Rowe, 609 P.2d 1348 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 10× “Thereafter, the King County Prosecuting Attorney filed a supplemental information, pursuant to RCW 9.92.090, alleging he was a habitual criminal.”
State v. Thorne, 921 P.2d 514 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 5× “Unlike the habitual criminals statute, which could apply to a relatively minor crime like petit larceny as well as to serious felonies, RCW 9.92.090, application of the Persistent Offender Accountability Act is limited to persons convicted on three occasions of serious crimes.”
State v. Carlyle, 576 P.2d 408 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 18× “After extended argument, the trial court found that the 1973 conviction for escape did not constitute a prior conviction within the scope of the second paragraph of RCW 9.92.090. [1] The court then found the defendant to be a habitual criminal within the scope of the first…”
State v. Gibson, 553 P.2d 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 10× “Believing he had no discretion to suspend sentence, the trial judge imposed a life sentence as provided by RCW 9.92.090. We affirm the judgment of conviction for taking the motor vehicle as well as the habitual criminal conviction.”
State v. Smith, 707 P.2d 1306 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 6× “When it was reported to the police that the defendant had received a large number of visitors and telephone calls, they set up surveillance of the defendant's room.”
State v. Barton, 609 P.2d 1353 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 6× “On or about May 16, 1977, defendant was arraigned on charges of possessing stolen property in the first degree, count 1; taking a motor vehicle without permission, count 2; *303 and possessing stolen property in the second degree, counts 3 and 4.”
Show all 144 citing cases →
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.