Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.575 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The power to defer or suspend the imposition or execution of sentence is hereby abolished in respect to sentences prescribed for felonies committed after June 30, 1984, except for offenders sentenced under RCW 9.94A.670, the special sex offender sentencing alternative, whose sentence may be suspended.
Notes:
Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.
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 13
cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: State v. Nason, 168 Wash. 2d 936 (Wash. 2010).
State v. Nason, 168 Wash. 2d 936 (Wash. 2010). “Nason alternatively argues that this provision constitutes a suspended sentence in violation of RCW 9.94A.575. Nason also asserts that the county is required by statute to credit against his LFO any jail time he serves for failing to pay the LFO.”
State v. Nason, 233 P.3d 848 (Wash. 2010). “Nason alternatively argues that this provision constitutes a suspended sentence in violation of RCW 9.94A.575. Nason also asserts that the county is required by statute to credit against his LFO any jail time he serves for failing to pay the LFO.”
Wahleithner v. Thompson, 134 Wash. App. 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.575. Rehabilitation is secondary to retribution, and courts have little leeway for the carrot-and-stick incentive offered by misdemeanor probation conditions.”
In Re Jl, 166 P.3d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “While it no doubt intended to create an opportunity for J.”
In re the Interest of J.L., 140 Wash. App. 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “that if she succeeded in complying with the order by attending school, the four days of secure detention would “fade away.” Report of Proceedings (RP) (Dec.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Nason contends the court lacked authority to enter the orders that modified his sentence conditions *752 because the orders contain provisions that impose suspended sentences that are prohibited by RCW 9.94A.575. RCW 9.94A.575 provides: The power to defer or suspend the…”
Wahleithner v. Thompson, 143 P.3d 321 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.94A.575. Rehabilitation is secondary to retribution, and courts have little leeway for the carrot-and-stick incentive offered by misdemeanor probation conditions.”
State v. Nason, 192 P.3d 386 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Nason contends the court lacked authority to enter the orders that modified his sentence conditions because the orders contain provisions which impose suspended sentences that are prohibited by RCW 9.94A.575. RCW 9.94A.575 provides: The power to defer or suspend the imposition…”
State v. A.S., 65 P.3d 676 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “130 (2000), recodified as RCW 9.94A.575 (Laws of 2001, ch. 10, § 6).”
State Of Washington v. S.g., 451 P.3d 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 9.94A.575. But RCW 3.66.067 permits courts of limited jurisdiction to defer non-drug-related and non-alcohol- related sentences and "place the defendant on probation for a period of no longer than two years and prescribe the conditions thereof.”
State of Washington v. Julian Jesus Garcia (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See RCW 9.94A.575. Those sentences were imposed according to the authorization of RCW 9.”
Thomas E. Hall, Jr., App. v. King Cnty., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “at 652 ; RCW 9.94A.575. Because of tolling, Robinson's term of probation extended beyond the ten years the court imposed.”
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.