Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505 (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) When a person is convicted of a felony, the court shall impose punishment as provided in this chapter.
(2)(a) The court shall impose a sentence as provided in the following sections and as applicable in the case:
(i) Unless another term of confinement applies, a sentence within the standard sentence range established in RCW 9.94A.510 or 9.94A.517;
(iii) RCW 9.94A.570, relating to persistent offenders;
(iv) RCW 9.94A.540, relating to mandatory minimum terms;
(v) RCW 9.94A.650, relating to the first-time offender waiver;
(vi) RCW 9.94A.660, relating to the drug offender sentencing alternative;
(vii) RCW 9.94A.670, relating to the special sex offender sentencing alternative;
(viii) RCW 9.94A.655, relating to the parenting sentencing alternative;
(ix) RCW 9.94A.695, relating to the mental health sentencing alternative;
(x) RCW 9.94A.507, relating to certain sex offenses;
(xi) RCW 9.94A.535, relating to exceptional sentences;
(xii) RCW 9.94A.589, relating to consecutive and concurrent sentences;
(xiii) RCW 9.94A.603, relating to felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug and felony physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug;
(xiv) RCW 9.94A.711, relating to the theft or taking of a motor vehicle.
(b) If a standard sentence range has not been established for the offender's crime, the court shall impose a determinate sentence which may include not more than one year of confinement; community restitution work; a term of community custody under RCW 9.94A.702 not to exceed one year; and/or other legal financial obligations. The court may impose a sentence which provides more than one year of confinement and a community custody term under RCW 9.94A.701 if the court finds reasons justifying an exceptional sentence as provided in RCW 9.94A.535.
(3) If the court imposes a sentence requiring confinement of 30 days or less, the court may, in its discretion, specify that the sentence be served on consecutive or intermittent days. A sentence requiring more than 30 days of confinement shall be served on consecutive days. Local jail administrators may schedule court-ordered intermittent sentences as space permits.
(4) If a sentence imposed includes payment of a legal financial obligation, it shall be imposed as provided in RCW 9.94A.750, 9.94A.753, and 9.94A.760.
(5) Except as provided under RCW 9.94A.750(4) and 9.94A.753(4), a court may not impose a sentence providing for a term of confinement or community custody that exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime as provided in chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(6) The sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all confinement time served before the sentencing if that confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced.
(7) The sentencing court shall not give the offender credit for any time the offender was required to comply with an electronic monitoring program prior to sentencing if the offender was convicted of one of the following offenses:
(a) A violent offense;
(b) Any sex offense;
(c) Any drug offense;
(e) Assault in the third degree as defined in RCW 9A.36.031;
(f) Assault of a child in the third degree;
(g) Unlawful imprisonment as defined in RCW 9A.40.040; or
(h) Harassment as defined in RCW 9A.46.020.
(9) As a part of any sentence, the court may impose and enforce crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions as provided in this chapter. "Crime-related prohibitions" may include a prohibition on the use or possession of alcohol or controlled substances if the court finds that any chemical dependency or substance abuse contributed to the offense.
(10) In any sentence of partial confinement, the court may require the offender to serve the partial confinement in work release, in a program of home detention, on work crew, or in a combined program of work crew and home detention.
[ 2022 c 260 s 23; 2021 c 242 s 3; 2019 c 191 s 3. Prior: 2015 c 287 s 10; 2015 c 81 s 1; 2010 c 224 s 4; 2009 c 389 s 1; 2009 c 28 s 6; 2008 c 231 s 25; 2006 c 73 s 6; prior: 2002 c 290 s 17; 2002 c 289 s 6; 2002 c 175 s 6; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 312; 2001 c 10 s 2; prior: 2000 c 226 s 2; 2000 c 43 s 1; 2000 c 28 s 5; prior: 1999 c 324 s 2; 1999 c 197 s 4; 1999 c 196 s 5; 1999 c 147 s 3; 1998 c 260 s 3; prior: 1997 c 340 s 2; 1997 c 338 s 4; 1997 c 144 s 2; 1997 c 121 s 2; 1997 c 69 s 1; prior: 1996 c 275 s 2; 1996 c 215 s 5; 1996 c 199 s 1; 1996 c 93 s 1; 1995 c 108 s 3; prior: 1994 c 1 s 2 (Initiative Measure No. 593, approved November 2, 1993); 1993 c 31 s 3; prior: 1992 c 145 s 7; 1992 c 75 s 2; 1992 c 45 s 5; prior: 1991 c 221 s 2; 1991 c 181 s 3; 1991 c 104 s 3; 1990 c 3 s 705; 1989 c 252 s 4; prior: 1988 c 154 s 3; 1988 c 153 s 2; 1988 c 143 s 21; prior: 1987 c 456 s 2; 1987 c 402 s 1; prior: 1986 c 301 s 4; 1986 c 301 s 3; 1986 c 257 s 20; 1984 c 209 s 6; 1983 c 163 s 2; 1982 c 192 s 4; 1981 c 137 s 12. Formerly RCW 9.94A.120.]
Notes:
Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Applicability—2021 c 242: See note following RCW 9.94A.695.
Effective date—2009 c 389 ss 1 and 3-5: "Sections 1 and 3 through 5 of this act take effect August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 389 s 8.]
Effective date—2009 c 28: See note following RCW 2.24.040.
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective date—2006 c 73: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Effective date—2002 c 290 ss 7-11 and 14-23: See note following RCW 9.94A.515.
Intent—2002 c 290: See note following RCW 9.94A.517.
Severability—Effective date—2002 c 289: See notes following RCW 43.43.753.
Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.
Intent—Severability—Effective dates—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250.
Application—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 ss 301-363: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Intent—2001 c 10: "It is the intent of the legislature to incorporate into the reorganization of chapter 9.94A RCW adopted by chapter 28, Laws of 2000 amendments adopted to RCW 9.94A.120 during the 2000 legislative session that did not take cognizance of the reorganization. In addition, it is the intent of the legislature to correct any additional incorrect cross-references and to simplify the codification of provisions within chapter 9.94A RCW.
The legislature does not intend to make, and no provision of this act may be construed as making, a substantive change in the sentencing reform act." [ 2001 c 10 s 1.]
Effective date—2001 c 10: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect July 1, 2001." [ 2001 c 10 s 7.]
Finding—Intent—2000 c 226: "The legislature finds that supervision of offenders in the community and an offender's payment of restitution enhances public safety, improves offender accountability, is an important component of providing justice to victims, and strengthens the community. The legislature intends that all terms and conditions of an offender's supervision in the community, including the length of supervision and payment of legal financial obligations, not be curtailed by an offender's absence from supervision for any reason including confinement in any correctional institution. The legislature, through this act, revises the results of In re Sappenfield, 980 P.2d 1271 (1999) and declares that an offender's absence from supervision or subsequent incarceration acts to toll the jurisdiction of the court or department over an offender for the purpose of enforcing legal financial obligations." [ 2000 c 226 s 1.]
Severability—2000 c 226: "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." [ 2000 c 226 s 6.]
Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.
Drug offender options—Report: "The Washington state institute for public policy, in consultation with the sentencing guidelines commission shall evaluate the impact of implementing the drug offender options provided for in RCW 9.94A.120(6). The commission shall submit a final report to the legislature by December 1, 2004. The report shall describe the changes in sentencing practices related to the use of punishment options for drug offenders and include the impact of sentencing alternatives on state prison populations, the savings in state resources, the effectiveness of drug treatment services, and the impact on recidivism rates." [ 1999 c 197 s 12.]
Severability—1999 c 197: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Severability—1999 c 196: See note following RCW 9.94A.010.
Intent—1998 c 260: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Finding—1996 c 275: "The legislature finds that improving the supervision of convicted sex offenders in the community upon release from incarceration is a substantial public policy goal, in that effective supervision accomplishes many purposes including protecting the community, supporting crime victims, assisting offenders to change, and providing important information to decision makers." [ 1996 c 275 s 1.]
Application—1996 c 275 ss 1-5: "Sections 1 through 5, chapter 275, Laws of 1996 apply to crimes committed on or after June 6, 1996." [ 1996 c 275 s 14.]
Severability—1996 c 199: "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." [ 1996 c 199 s 9.]
Effective date—1995 c 108: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Severability—Short title—Captions—1994 c 1: See notes following RCW 9.94A.555.
Severability—Application—1992 c 45: See notes following RCW 9.94A.840.
Purpose—Prospective application—Effective dates—Severability—1989 c 252: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective date—Application of increased sanctions—1988 c 153: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Applicability—1988 c 143 ss 21-24: "Increased sanctions authorized by sections 21 through 24 of this act are applicable only to those persons committing offenses after March 21, 1988." [ 1988 c 143 s 25.]
Effective date—1987 c 402: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1987." [ 1987 c 402 s 3.]
Effective date—1986 c 301 s 4: "Section 4 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1987." [ 1986 c 301 s 8.]
Severability—1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.
Effective date—1986 c 257 ss 17-35: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective dates—1984 c 209: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective date—1983 c 163: "Sections 1 through 5 of this act shall take effect on July 1, 1984." [ 1983 c 163 s 7.]
Effective date—1981 c 137: See RCW 9.94A.905.
(1) When a person is convicted of a felony, the court shall impose punishment as provided in this chapter.
(2)(a) The court shall impose a sentence as provided in the following sections and as applicable in the case:
(i) Unless another term of confinement applies, a sentence within the standard sentence range established in RCW 9.94A.510 or 9.94A.517;
(iii) RCW 9.94A.570, relating to persistent offenders;
(iv) RCW 9.94A.540, relating to mandatory minimum terms;
(v) RCW 9.94A.650, relating to the first-time offender waiver;
(vi) RCW 9.94A.660, relating to the drug offender sentencing alternative;
(vii) RCW 9.94A.661, relating to the drug offender sentencing alternative for driving under the influence;
(viii) RCW 9.94A.670, relating to the special sex offender sentencing alternative;
(ix) RCW 9.94A.655, relating to the parenting sentencing alternative;
(x) RCW 9.94A.695, relating to the mental health sentencing alternative;
(xi) RCW 9.94A.507, relating to certain sex offenses;
(xii) RCW 9.94A.535, relating to exceptional sentences;
(xiii) RCW 9.94A.589, relating to consecutive and concurrent sentences;
(xiv) RCW 9.94A.603, relating to felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug and felony physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug;
(xv) RCW 9.94A.711, relating to the theft or taking of a motor vehicle.
(b) If a standard sentence range has not been established for the offender's crime, the court shall impose a determinate sentence which may include not more than one year of confinement; community restitution work; a term of community custody under RCW 9.94A.702 not to exceed one year; and/or other legal financial obligations. The court may impose a sentence which provides more than one year of confinement and a community custody term under RCW 9.94A.701 if the court finds reasons justifying an exceptional sentence as provided in RCW 9.94A.535.
(3) If the court imposes a sentence requiring confinement of 30 days or less, the court may, in its discretion, specify that the sentence be served on consecutive or intermittent days. A sentence requiring more than 30 days of confinement shall be served on consecutive days. Local jail administrators may schedule court-ordered intermittent sentences as space permits.
(4) If a sentence imposed includes payment of a legal financial obligation, it shall be imposed as provided in RCW 9.94A.750, 9.94A.753, and 9.94A.760.
(5) Except as provided under RCW 9.94A.750(4) and 9.94A.753(4), a court may not impose a sentence providing for a term of confinement or community custody that exceeds the statutory maximum for the crime as provided in chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(6) The sentencing court shall give the offender credit for all confinement time served before the sentencing if that confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sentenced.
(7) The sentencing court shall not give the offender credit for any time the offender was required to comply with an electronic monitoring program prior to sentencing if the offender was convicted of one of the following offenses:
(a) A violent offense;
(b) Any sex offense;
(c) Any drug offense;
(e) Assault in the third degree as defined in RCW 9A.36.031;
(f) Assault of a child in the third degree;
(g) Unlawful imprisonment as defined in RCW 9A.40.040; or
(h) Harassment as defined in RCW 9A.46.020.
(9) As a part of any sentence, the court may impose and enforce crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions as provided in this chapter. "Crime-related prohibitions" may include a prohibition on the use or possession of alcohol or controlled substances if the court finds that any chemical dependency or substance abuse contributed to the offense.
(10) In any sentence of partial confinement, the court may require the offender to serve the partial confinement in work release, in a program of home detention, on work crew, or in a combined program of work crew and home detention.
[ 2024 c 306 s 5; 2022 c 260 s 23; 2021 c 242 s 3; 2019 c 191 s 3. Prior: 2015 c 287 s 10; 2015 c 81 s 1; 2010 c 224 s 4; 2009 c 389 s 1; 2009 c 28 s 6; 2008 c 231 s 25; 2006 c 73 s 6; prior: 2002 c 290 s 17; 2002 c 289 s 6; 2002 c 175 s 6; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 312; 2001 c 10 s 2; prior: 2000 c 226 s 2; 2000 c 43 s 1; 2000 c 28 s 5; prior: 1999 c 324 s 2; 1999 c 197 s 4; 1999 c 196 s 5; 1999 c 147 s 3; 1998 c 260 s 3; prior: 1997 c 340 s 2; 1997 c 338 s 4; 1997 c 144 s 2; 1997 c 121 s 2; 1997 c 69 s 1; prior: 1996 c 275 s 2; 1996 c 215 s 5; 1996 c 199 s 1; 1996 c 93 s 1; 1995 c 108 s 3; prior: 1994 c 1 s 2 (Initiative Measure No. 593, approved November 2, 1993); 1993 c 31 s 3; prior: 1992 c 145 s 7; 1992 c 75 s 2; 1992 c 45 s 5; prior: 1991 c 221 s 2; 1991 c 181 s 3; 1991 c 104 s 3; 1990 c 3 s 705; 1989 c 252 s 4; prior: 1988 c 154 s 3; 1988 c 153 s 2; 1988 c 143 s 21; prior: 1987 c 456 s 2; 1987 c 402 s 1; prior: 1986 c 301 s 4; 1986 c 301 s 3; 1986 c 257 s 20; 1984 c 209 s 6; 1983 c 163 s 2; 1982 c 192 s 4; 1981 c 137 s 12. Formerly RCW 9.94A.120.]
Notes:
Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Applicability—2021 c 242: See note following RCW 9.94A.695.
Effective date—2009 c 389 ss 1 and 3-5: "Sections 1 and 3 through 5 of this act take effect August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 389 s 8.]
Effective date—2009 c 28: See note following RCW 2.24.040.
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective date—2006 c 73: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Effective date—2002 c 290 ss 7-11 and 14-23: See note following RCW 9.94A.515.
Intent—2002 c 290: See note following RCW 9.94A.517.
Severability—Effective date—2002 c 289: See notes following RCW 43.43.753.
Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.
Intent—Severability—Effective dates—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250.
Application—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 ss 301-363: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Intent—2001 c 10: "It is the intent of the legislature to incorporate into the reorganization of chapter 9.94A RCW adopted by chapter 28, Laws of 2000 amendments adopted to RCW 9.94A.120 during the 2000 legislative session that did not take cognizance of the reorganization. In addition, it is the intent of the legislature to correct any additional incorrect cross-references and to simplify the codification of provisions within chapter 9.94A RCW.
The legislature does not intend to make, and no provision of this act may be construed as making, a substantive change in the sentencing reform act." [ 2001 c 10 s 1.]
Effective date—2001 c 10: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect July 1, 2001." [ 2001 c 10 s 7.]
Finding—Intent—2000 c 226: "The legislature finds that supervision of offenders in the community and an offender's payment of restitution enhances public safety, improves offender accountability, is an important component of providing justice to victims, and strengthens the community. The legislature intends that all terms and conditions of an offender's supervision in the community, including the length of supervision and payment of legal financial obligations, not be curtailed by an offender's absence from supervision for any reason including confinement in any correctional institution. The legislature, through this act, revises the results of In re Sappenfield, 980 P.2d 1271 (1999) and declares that an offender's absence from supervision or subsequent incarceration acts to toll the jurisdiction of the court or department over an offender for the purpose of enforcing legal financial obligations." [ 2000 c 226 s 1.]
Severability—2000 c 226: "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." [ 2000 c 226 s 6.]
Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.
Drug offender options—Report: "The Washington state institute for public policy, in consultation with the sentencing guidelines commission shall evaluate the impact of implementing the drug offender options provided for in RCW 9.94A.120(6). The commission shall submit a final report to the legislature by December 1, 2004. The report shall describe the changes in sentencing practices related to the use of punishment options for drug offenders and include the impact of sentencing alternatives on state prison populations, the savings in state resources, the effectiveness of drug treatment services, and the impact on recidivism rates." [ 1999 c 197 s 12.]
Severability—1999 c 197: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Severability—1999 c 196: See note following RCW 9.94A.010.
Intent—1998 c 260: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Finding—1996 c 275: "The legislature finds that improving the supervision of convicted sex offenders in the community upon release from incarceration is a substantial public policy goal, in that effective supervision accomplishes many purposes including protecting the community, supporting crime victims, assisting offenders to change, and providing important information to decision makers." [ 1996 c 275 s 1.]
Application—1996 c 275 ss 1-5: "Sections 1 through 5, chapter 275, Laws of 1996 apply to crimes committed on or after June 6, 1996." [ 1996 c 275 s 14.]
Severability—1996 c 199: "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." [ 1996 c 199 s 9.]
Effective date—1995 c 108: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Severability—Short title—Captions—1994 c 1: See notes following RCW 9.94A.555.
Severability—Application—1992 c 45: See notes following RCW 9.94A.840.
Purpose—Prospective application—Effective dates—Severability—1989 c 252: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective date—Application of increased sanctions—1988 c 153: See notes following RCW 9.94A.030.
Applicability—1988 c 143 ss 21-24: "Increased sanctions authorized by sections 21 through 24 of this act are applicable only to those persons committing offenses after March 21, 1988." [ 1988 c 143 s 25.]
Effective date—1987 c 402: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1987." [ 1987 c 402 s 3.]
Effective date—1986 c 301 s 4: "Section 4 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1987." [ 1986 c 301 s 8.]
Severability—1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010.
Effective date—1986 c 257 ss 17-35: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective dates—1984 c 209: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Effective date—1983 c 163: "Sections 1 through 5 of this act shall take effect on July 1, 1984." [ 1983 c 163 s 7.]
Effective date—1981 c 137: See RCW 9.94A.905.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 520
cases (105 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State v. Armendariz, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007).
State v. Armendariz, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash. 2d 106 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz Rivera, 361 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues that conditions that preclude him from possessing or using drug paraphernalia and loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity, that prohibit association with drug users or dealers or being in high drug use areas, and that require him to undergo…”
State v. Jones, 118 Wash. App. 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Effective July 1, 2001, it was incorporated into RCW 9.94A.505 generally, RCW 9.94A.700, .”
State v. Jones, 76 P.3d 258 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Effective July 1, 2001, it was incorporated into RCW 9.94A.505 generally, RCW 9.94A.700-.705 relating to community placement, and RCW 9.”
State v. Brooks, 176 P.3d 549 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Brooks cites to RCW 9.94A.505 and State v. Jones 1 to support his contention that the trial court did not *850 have the authority to require a mental health evaluation as a part of his community custody.”
State v. Warren, 165 Wash. 2d 17 (Wash. 2008). “The court cited Warren’s controlling behavior in general, including the fact that Lisa took the children out of school and avoided subpoenas at Warren’s urging.”
State v. Warren, 195 P.3d 940 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 19 The trial court imposed the no-contact order because Lisa's children were the victims of the crimes and because she testified against Warren at his first trial. The court cited Warren's controlling behavior in general, including the fact that Lisa took the children out of…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Rainey, 168 Wash. 2d 367 (Wash. 2010). “Standard of Review ¶10 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, RCW 9.94A.505(8), authorizes the trial court to impose “crime-related prohibitions” as a condition of sentence.”
In Re Rainey, 229 P.3d 686 (Wash. 2010). “Standard of Review ¶ 10 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, RCW 9.94A.505(8), authorizes the trial court to impose "crime-related prohibitions" as a condition of sentence.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of McWilliams, 340 P.3d 223 (Wash. 2014). “*218 ¶8 Nevertheless, the trial court’s sentence still violates RCW 9.94A.505(5), which restricts a trial court from imposing a combined term of confinement and community-custody that exceeds the statutory maximum.”
State of Washington v. Mario Torres, 198 Wash. App. 685 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “4 The Warren court cites to the former RCW 9.94A.505(8) (2006), but the relevant provision has been recodified as RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(1) — 20 cases
State v. Paulson, 131 Wash. App. 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State Of Washington, V Johnny Ray Cyr, 441 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Paulson, 128 P.3d 133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Breitung, 230 P.3d 614 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Crockett, 118 Wash. App. 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2) — 4 cases
State v. Lindahl, 56 P.3d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Lindahl, 56 P.3d 589 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Crockett, 118 Wash. App. 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Benefiel, 46 P.3d 808 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hernandez, 342 P.3d 820 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(i) — 39 cases
State v. Law, 154 Wash. 2d 85 (Wash. 2005).
State v. Law, 110 P.3d 717 (Wash. 2005).
State v. Graham, 337 P.3d 319 (Wash. 2014).
State v. Rodriguez, 335 P.3d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
State Of Washington, V Johnny Ray Cyr, 441 P.3d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(ii) — 4 cases
State v. Armendariz, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash. 2d 106 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Franklin, 263 P.3d 585 (Wash. 2011).
State of Washington v. James Austin Yancey, 418 P.3d 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(iii) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Misael Cortez Perez (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(iv) — 1 case
State v. Crockett, 78 P.3d 658 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(v) — 2 cases
State v. Birch, 151 Wash. App. 504 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Birch, 213 P.3d 63 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(viii) — 2 cases
State v. Wood, 117 Wash. App. 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Wood, 70 P.3d 151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(x) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Stephen Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(a)(xii) — 1 case
State v. Hernandez, 342 P.3d 820 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(b) — 30 cases
State v. Paulson, 131 Wash. App. 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Acron, 95 P.3d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Acron, 122 Wash. App. 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2008).
In re the Det. of Broten, 115 Wash. App. 252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(2)(x) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. Adrian Sutlej Samalia (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Washington v. Eric Allen Haggin (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Eugene Lester Standfill (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(5) — 87 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of McWilliams, 340 P.3d 223 (Wash. 2014). “*218 ¶8 Nevertheless, the trial court’s sentence still violates RCW 9.94A.505(5), which restricts a trial court from imposing a combined term of confinement and community-custody that exceeds the statutory maximum.”
State v. Linerud, 197 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Armendariz, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash. 2d 106 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Vant, 186 P.3d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(6) — 67 cases
State v. Enriquez-Martinez, 492 P.3d 162 (Wash. 2021).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Costello, 131 Wash. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Dawn Marie Sullivan, Appellant, 196 Wash. App. 277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Michael Anderson v. State of Iowa, 801 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2011).
State v. Stewart, 136 Wash. App. 162 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(7) — 5 cases
State v. Min Sik Kim, 436 P.3d 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Cosgaya-Alvarez, 291 P.3d 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State Of Washington, V Min Sik Kim (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Skylar Nemetz (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V. Thomas A. Shotwell (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(7)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Min Sik Kim, 436 P.3d 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. Thomas A. Shotwell (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State Of Washington, V. Sammy Eric Petersen (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State Of Washington, V Min Sik Kim (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(8) — 113 cases
State v. Armendariz, 156 P.3d 201 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State v. Armendariz, 160 Wash. 2d 106 (Wash. 2007). “505(8) constitutes an independent grant of authority to impose crime-related prohibitions is supported by the overall structure of RCW 9.94A.505. This statute provides a general outline of how courts are to impose felony sentences under the SRA.”
State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz Rivera, 361 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues that conditions that preclude him from possessing or using drug paraphernalia and loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity, that prohibit association with drug users or dealers or being in high drug use areas, and that require him to undergo…”
State v. Warren, 165 Wash. 2d 17 (Wash. 2008). “The court cited Warren’s controlling behavior in general, including the fact that Lisa took the children out of school and avoided subpoenas at Warren’s urging.”
State v. Warren, 195 P.3d 940 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 19 The trial court imposed the no-contact order because Lisa's children were the victims of the crimes and because she testified against Warren at his first trial. The court cited Warren's controlling behavior in general, including the fact that Lisa took the children out of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(9) — 112 cases
State v. Jones, 118 Wash. App. 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Effective July 1, 2001, it was incorporated into RCW 9.94A.505 generally, RCW 9.94A.700, .”
State v. Jones, 76 P.3d 258 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Effective July 1, 2001, it was incorporated into RCW 9.94A.505 generally, RCW 9.94A.700-.705 relating to community placement, and RCW 9.”
State v. Brooks, 176 P.3d 549 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Brooks cites to RCW 9.94A.505 and State v. Jones 1 to support his contention that the trial court did not *850 have the authority to require a mental health evaluation as a part of his community custody.”
State Of Washington v. Adrian Munoz Rivera, 361 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues that conditions that preclude him from possessing or using drug paraphernalia and loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity, that prohibit association with drug users or dealers or being in high drug use areas, and that require him to undergo…”
State of Washington v. Mario Torres, 198 Wash. App. 685 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “4 The Warren court cites to the former RCW 9.94A.505(8) (2006), but the relevant provision has been recodified as RCW 9.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.505(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, Res. v. Vladimir v. Mishkov, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.