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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.431 (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) If a plea agreement has been reached by the prosecutor and the defendant pursuant to RCW 9.94A.421, they shall at the time of the defendant's plea state to the court, on the record, the nature of the agreement and the reasons for the agreement. The prosecutor shall inform the court on the record whether the victim or victims of all crimes against persons, as defined in RCW 9.94A.411, covered by the plea agreement have expressed any objections to or comments on the nature of and reasons for the plea agreement. The court, at the time of the plea, shall determine if the agreement is consistent with the interests of justice and with the prosecuting standards. If the court determines it is not consistent with the interests of justice and with the prosecuting standards, the court shall, on the record, inform the defendant and the prosecutor that they are not bound by the agreement and that the defendant may withdraw the defendant's plea of guilty, if one has been made, and enter a plea of not guilty.
(2) The sentencing judge is not bound by any recommendations contained in an allowed plea agreement and the defendant shall be so informed at the time of plea.
[ 1995 c 288 s 2; 1984 c 209 s 4; 1981 c 137 s 9. Formerly RCW 9.94A.090.]

Notes:

Effective dates—1984 c 209: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective date—1981 c 137: See RCW 9.94A.905.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State of Washington v. Dahndre Kavaugn Westwood, 448 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Washington v. Dahndre Kavaugn Westwood, 448 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “090 (1981), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431. The SRA confers explicit approval on the plea bargaining process.”
State v. Crawford, 147 P.3d 1288 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.431(2). ¶ 33 In light of Crawford's extensive criminal history and the lack of mitigation evidence in the record, Crawford has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel's error, he would have succeeded in avoiding sentencing under the POAA.”
State v. Crawford, 159 Wash. 2d 86 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.431(2). ¶35 In light of Crawford’s extensive criminal history and the lack of mitigation evidence in the record, Crawford has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s error, he would have succeeded in avoiding sentencing under the POAA.”
State v. Rice, 159 Wash. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “090 at RCW 9.94A.431. Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6.”
State v. Phelps, 57 P.3d 624 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “If the trial court finds the plea agreement to be "consistent with the interests of justice and with the prosecuting standards," RCW 9.94A.431(1), and if the defendant enters into the agreement "intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences," the…”
State v. Barber, 217 P.3d 346 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “090(2) (2000), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431(2) by Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6 (sentencing judge is not bound by any recommendations contained in a plea agreement)).”
State v. Knotek, 136 Wash. App. 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “2(d)); see also RCW 9.94A.431. ¶23 CrR 7.8 governs postjudgment motions to withdraw a guilty plea.”
State v. Barber, 217 P.3d 346 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “090(2), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431(2) by Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6 (sentencing judge is not bound by any recommendations contained in a plea agreement)).”
State v. Rice, 246 P.3d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “090 at RCW 9.94A.431. LAWS OF 2001, ch. 10, § 6.”
State v. Knotek, 149 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “2(d)); see also RCW 9.94A.431. ¶ 23 CrR 7.8 governs post-judgment motions to withdraw a guilty plea.”
State Of Washington, V. Joseph Mitchel Bielas (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “Under RCW 9.94A.431, read as a whole, the superior court did not err by refusing to allow Bielas to withdraw his guilty plea because the superior court declined to follow the agreed sentencing recommendation in the plea agreement.”
State of Washington v. Darren Stanley Harris, 533 P.3d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 9.94A.431(1) provides that the prosecutor and the defendant “shall at the time of the defendant’s plea state to the court, on the record, the nature of the agreement and the reasons for the agreement.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.431(1) — 11 cases
State v. Phelps, 57 P.3d 624 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “If the trial court finds the plea agreement to be "consistent with the interests of justice and with the prosecuting standards," RCW 9.94A.431(1), and if the defendant enters into the agreement "intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences," the…”
State of Washington v. Dahndre Kavaugn Westwood, 448 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “090 (1981), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431. The SRA confers explicit approval on the plea bargaining process.”
State v. Rice, 159 Wash. App. 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “090 at RCW 9.94A.431. Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6.”
State v. Rice, 246 P.3d 234 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “090 at RCW 9.94A.431. LAWS OF 2001, ch. 10, § 6.”
State of Washington v. Darren Stanley Harris, 533 P.3d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “” RCW 9.94A.431(1) provides that the prosecutor and the defendant “shall at the time of the defendant’s plea state to the court, on the record, the nature of the agreement and the reasons for the agreement.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.431(2) — 17 cases
State v. Crawford, 147 P.3d 1288 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.431(2). ¶ 33 In light of Crawford's extensive criminal history and the lack of mitigation evidence in the record, Crawford has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel's error, he would have succeeded in avoiding sentencing under the POAA.”
State v. Crawford, 159 Wash. 2d 86 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.431(2). ¶35 In light of Crawford’s extensive criminal history and the lack of mitigation evidence in the record, Crawford has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s error, he would have succeeded in avoiding sentencing under the POAA.”
State v. Barber, 217 P.3d 346 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “090(2) (2000), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431(2) by Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6 (sentencing judge is not bound by any recommendations contained in a plea agreement)).”
State v. Barber, 217 P.3d 346 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “090(2), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431(2) by Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6 (sentencing judge is not bound by any recommendations contained in a plea agreement)).”
State of Washington v. Dahndre Kavaugn Westwood, 448 P.3d 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “090 (1981), recodified as RCW 9.94A.431. The SRA confers explicit approval on the plea bargaining process.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.431(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Scott Brian Rehmus (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
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.