Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.94A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.401 (2026)

Introduction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
These standards are intended solely for the guidance of prosecutors in the state of Washington. They are not intended to, do not and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party in litigation with the state.
[ 1983 c 115 s 14. Formerly RCW 9.94A.430.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: State v. Korum, 141 P.3d 13 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Korum, 141 P.3d 13 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.401. See also DAVID BOERNER, SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE SENTENCING REFORM ACT OF 1981 § 12.”
State v. Korum, 157 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.401. See also David Boerner, Sentencing in Washington: A Legal Analysis of the Sentencing Reform Act of *626 1981, § 12.”
State v. Rice, 279 P.3d 849 (Wash. 2012). “at 172 (finding use of “shall” merely directory regarding county treasurer’s giving of notice to property owners); RCW 9.94A.401 (“These standards are intended solely for the guidance of prosecutors .”
Doe P v. Thurston Cnty., 199 Wash. App. 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “¶51 RCW 9.94A.401 to .480 contain “prosecutorial standards” that are “intended solely for the guidance of prosecutors [and] are not intended to .”
State v. Snedden, 73 P.3d 995 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 9.94A.401. The SRA list of prosecuting standards serves a wholly different purpose than the second degree burglary statute.”
State of Washington v. Dahndre Kavaugn Westwood, 448 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9.94A.401. Although RCW 9.94A.431 authorizes judicial oversight of prosecutorial standards in the context of plea agreements, such oversight “must be exercised with due regard for constitutional separation of powers.”
Doe v. Pierce Cnty., 433 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “" RCW 9.94A.401. Zink does not argue that PCSD assessed costs in violation of the PRA; she acknowledges that only PCPO assessed any costs.”
State of Washington v. Cecily Zorada McFarland, 492 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “See RCW 9.94A.401, et seq. 3 “I don’t understand why the Court of Appeals .”
State v. Snedden, 73 P.3d 995 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 9.94A.401. The SRA list of prosecuting standards serves a wholly different purpose *999 than the second degree burglary statute.”
State of Washington v. Cindy Lou McMeans (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “, at 12-46; RCW 9.94A.401. The prosecutor "should file charges which adequately describe the nature of the defendant's conduct," and should not overcharge a crime in order to obtain a guilty plea.”
State of Washington v. Jeremy Joseph Alvarez (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Alvarez RCW 9.94A.401. A prosecutor should not overcharge a defendant in order to obtain a guilty plea, RCW 9.”
State of Washington v. Jeremy Joseph Alvarez (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “Alvarez RCW 9.94A.401. A prosecutor should not overcharge a defendant in order to obtain a guilty plea, RCW 9.”
Show all 14 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.