Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010 (2026)
Purpose
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose of this chapter is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting sentences, and to:
(1) Ensure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history;
(2) Promote respect for the law by providing punishment which is just;
(3) Be commensurate with the punishment imposed on others committing similar offenses;
(4) Protect the public;
(5) Offer the offender an opportunity to improve himself or herself;
(6) Make frugal use of the state's and local governments' resources; and
(7) Reduce the risk of reoffending by offenders in the community.
Notes:
Severability—1999 c 196: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1999 c 196 s 20.]
Report on Sentencing Reform Act of 1981: "The legislative budget committee shall prepare a report to be filed at the beginning of the 1987 session of the legislature. The report shall include a complete assessment of the impact of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981. Such report shall include the effectiveness of the guidelines and impact on prison and jail populations and community correction programs." [ 1983 c 163 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 435
cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005).
State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. [3] ¶ 7 The trial court's oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3),…”
State v. Barnes, 818 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 2003). “See RCW 9.94A.010. Defendants will be held accountable for what they have been convicted of, but not for crimes that the prosecution either could not or chose not to prove.”
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “[28] The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in its brief amicus curiae recites claims made by Respondent and also argues that a literal interpretation of the statute "defeats the goal of proportionality", [29] citing RCW 9.94A.010 which provides that the purpose…”
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. 3 ¶7 The trial court’s oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3), (4),…”
State v. Ritchie, 894 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1995). “Second, the general declaration of purpose in RCW 9.94A.010 does not overcome the controlling language of the substantive provisions of the SRA.”
State v. Gaines, 859 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1993). “Finally, we comment upon the Court of Appeals' analysis of the question whether the trial court's reasons were legally sufficient to justify the exceptional sentence. The trial court reasoned in part that because Gaines's drug addiction was directly related to his crime, the…”
State v. Pascal, 736 P.2d 1065 (Wash. 1987). “" RCW 9.94A.010. (Italics ours.) The act provides for structured decisions by requiring that there be "substantial and compelling reasons" for imposing any exceptional sentence, RCW 9.”
State v. Ramos, 387 P.3d 650 (Wash. 2017). “340 to the extent they do not restrict my consideration of factors under RCW 9.94A.010 on the question of concurrent versus consecutive sentences under RCW 9.”
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 9.94A.010 provides that the purpose of the sentencing reform act is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting…”
State v. Korum, 141 P.3d 13 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.010 enumerates the purposes of the SRA, one of which is to "[e]nsure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history.”
State v. Nelson, 740 P.2d 835 (Wash. 1987). “RCW 9.94A.010. The legislative intent that punishment for a criminal offense be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history has been largely achieved by the creation and application of a statewide sentencing grid and criminal history…”
State v. Oxborrow, 723 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1986). “First, RCW 9.94A.010 provides in pertinent part: The purpose of [the SRA] is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(1) — 111 cases
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “[28] The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in its brief amicus curiae recites claims made by Respondent and also argues that a literal interpretation of the statute "defeats the goal of proportionality", [29] citing RCW 9.94A.010 which provides that the purpose…”
State v. Ritchie, 894 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1995). “Second, the general declaration of purpose in RCW 9.94A.010 does not overcome the controlling language of the substantive provisions of the SRA.”
State v. Korum, 141 P.3d 13 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.010 enumerates the purposes of the SRA, one of which is to "[e]nsure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history.”
State v. Korum, 157 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 2006).
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 9.94A.010 provides that the purpose of the sentencing reform act is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(2) — 37 cases
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wash. 2d 272 (Wash. 2005).
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “[28] The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in its brief amicus curiae recites claims made by Respondent and also argues that a literal interpretation of the statute "defeats the goal of proportionality", [29] citing RCW 9.94A.010 which provides that the purpose…”
State v. Witherspoon, 329 P.3d 888 (Wash. 2014).
State v. Creekmore, 783 P.2d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Kinneman, 119 P.3d 350 (Wash. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(3) — 38 cases
State v. Graciano, 295 P.3d 219 (Wash. 2013).
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “[28] The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in its brief amicus curiae recites claims made by Respondent and also argues that a literal interpretation of the statute "defeats the goal of proportionality", [29] citing RCW 9.94A.010 which provides that the purpose…”
State v. Pascal, 736 P.2d 1065 (Wash. 1987). “" RCW 9.94A.010. (Italics ours.) The act provides for structured decisions by requiring that there be "substantial and compelling reasons" for imposing any exceptional sentence, RCW 9.”
State v. Creekmore, 783 P.2d 1068 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. 3 ¶7 The trial court’s oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3), (4),…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(4) — 39 cases
State v. Barnes, 818 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 2003). “See RCW 9.94A.010. Defendants will be held accountable for what they have been convicted of, but not for crimes that the prosecution either could not or chose not to prove.”
State v. Bahl, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008).
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739 (Wash. 2008).
State v. Jones, 257 P.3d 616 (Wash. 2011).
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 9.94A.010 provides that the purpose of the sentencing reform act is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(5) — 18 cases
State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. [3] ¶ 7 The trial court's oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3),…”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987).
State v. Barnes, 818 P.2d 1088 (Wash. 2003). “See RCW 9.94A.010. Defendants will be held accountable for what they have been convicted of, but not for crimes that the prosecution either could not or chose not to prove.”
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. 3 ¶7 The trial court’s oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3), (4),…”
State v. Bernhard, 741 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1987).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(6) — 13 cases
State v. McDougal, 841 P.2d 1232 (Wash. 1992). “[28] The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in its brief amicus curiae recites claims made by Respondent and also argues that a literal interpretation of the statute "defeats the goal of proportionality", [29] citing RCW 9.94A.010 which provides that the purpose…”
State v. Nelson, 740 P.2d 835 (Wash. 1987). “RCW 9.94A.010. The legislative intent that punishment for a criminal offense be proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history has been largely achieved by the creation and application of a statewide sentencing grid and criminal history…”
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. 3 ¶7 The trial court’s oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3), (4),…”
State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005). “Noting the legislature intended the statutory factors listed to be illustrative only and nonexclusive, the trial court based its ruling, in part, on the stated purposes of the SRA, found in RCW 9.94A.010. [3] ¶ 7 The trial court's oral opinion also alluded to SRA purposes (3),…”
In Re Cadwallader, 123 P.3d 456 (Wash. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(7) — 4 cases
State v. Rice, 159 Wash. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Rice, 246 P.3d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Ervin, 205 P.3d 170 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Ervin, 149 Wash. App. 561 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010(l) — 3 cases
Piris v. Kitching, 375 P.3d 627 (Wash. 2016).
State v. Bernhard, 741 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1987).
State v. Alexander, 854 P.2d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
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.