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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585 (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) A sentence within the standard sentence range, under RCW 9.94A.510 or 9.94A.517, for an offense shall not be appealed. For purposes of this section, a sentence imposed on a first-time offender under RCW 9.94A.650 shall also be deemed to be within the standard sentence range for the offense and shall not be appealed.
(2) A sentence outside the standard sentence range for the offense is subject to appeal by the defendant or the state. The appeal shall be to the court of appeals in accordance with rules adopted by the supreme court.
(3) Pending review of the sentence, the sentencing court or the court of appeals may order the defendant confined or placed on conditional release, including bond.
(4) To reverse a sentence which is outside the standard sentence range, the reviewing court must find: (a) Either that the reasons supplied by the sentencing court are not supported by the record which was before the judge or that those reasons do not justify a sentence outside the standard sentence range for that offense; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.
(5) A review under this section shall be made solely upon the record that was before the sentencing court. Written briefs shall not be required and the review and decision shall be made in an expedited manner according to rules adopted by the supreme court.
(6) The court of appeals shall issue a written opinion in support of its decision whenever the judgment of the sentencing court is reversed and may issue written opinions in any other case where the court believes that a written opinion would provide guidance to sentencing courts and others in implementing this chapter and in developing a common law of sentencing within the state.
(7) The department may petition for a review of a sentence committing an offender to the custody or jurisdiction of the department. The review shall be limited to errors of law. Such petition shall be filed with the court of appeals no later than ninety days after the department has actual knowledge of terms of the sentence. The petition shall include a certification by the department that all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute at the superior court level have been exhausted.
[ 2002 c 290 s 19; 2000 c 28 s 10; 1989 c 214 s 1; 1984 c 209 s 13; 1982 c 192 s 7; 1981 c 137 s 21. Formerly RCW 9.94A.210.]

Notes:

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.
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 457 cases (132 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State v. Stubbs, 240 P.3d 143 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stubbs, 240 P.3d 143 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wash. 2d 117 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
Dress v. Dep't of Corr., 279 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “¶5 Despite the provisions of RCW 9.94A.585(7), which provides for relief where DOC claims that there is an error of law in a judgment and sentence, the DOC never petitioned the court of appeals for review of the April 19, 2006, sentence.”
State v. Kilgore, 216 P.3d 393 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “For example RCW 9.94A.585— which prevails over any contrary provisions in the appellate rules—makes all sentences outside the standard range appealable.”
State v. Kilgore, 167 Wash. 2d 28 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “585, which allows defendants to appeal sentences outside the standard range, would be applicable if the trial court on remand had entered a new judgment and sentence that sentenced Kilgore outside the standard range. As the trial court on remand corrected only the original…”
State v. Delbosque, 456 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “Washington law broadly guarantees the right to appeal sentences, even after resentencing As a general rule, the Washington Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to appeal "in all cases.”
State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 530 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 9.94A.585(1); In re Pers. Restraint of Marshall, 10 Wn.”
State v. Kinneman, 119 P.3d 350 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “2(b)(6) and RCW 9.94A.585(2) permit an appeal by the State when a sentence outside the standard range is imposed or an offender score has been miscalculated, under State v.”
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wash. 2d 272 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “2(b)(6) and RCW 9.94A.585(2) permit an appeal by the State when a sentence outside the standard range is imposed or an offender score has been miscalculated, under State v.”
State v. Ramos, 387 P.3d 650 (Wash. 2017). “” RCW 9.94A.585(1); see also former RCW 9.94A.”
State v. Suleiman, 143 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶19 Similar to the analysis applicable for the “clearly too lenient” aggravating factor at issue in Hughes, this court has recognized factual bases that must support a finding that the victim was particularly vulnerable. Moreover, the conclusion that a victim is particularly…”
State v. Hale, 146 Wash. App. 299 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “¶14 Prior to Blakely , our Supreme Court established a three-part analysis to review the trial court’s findings and conclusions, justifying an exceptional sentence under RCW 9.94A.585. State v. Fowler, 145 Wn.2d 400, 405 , 38 P.”
Show all 457 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(1) — 228 cases
State v. Delbosque, 456 P.3d 806 (Wash. 2020). “Washington law broadly guarantees the right to appeal sentences, even after resentencing As a general rule, the Washington Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to appeal "in all cases.”
State Of Washington, V. James Laron Ellis, 530 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 9.94A.585(1); In re Pers. Restraint of Marshall, 10 Wn.”
State v. Ramos, 387 P.3d 650 (Wash. 2017). “” RCW 9.94A.585(1); see also former RCW 9.94A.”
State v. O'Dell, 358 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2015).
State v. Grayson, 111 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(2) — 24 cases
State v. Kinneman, 119 P.3d 350 (Wash. 2005). “2(b)(6) and RCW 9.94A.585(2) permit an appeal by the State when a sentence outside the standard range is imposed or an offender score has been miscalculated, under State v.”
State v. Kinneman, 155 Wash. 2d 272 (Wash. 2005). “2(b)(6) and RCW 9.94A.585(2) permit an appeal by the State when a sentence outside the standard range is imposed or an offender score has been miscalculated, under State v.”
State v. Kinneman, 95 P.3d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Kinneman, 122 Wash. App. 850 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Friedlund, 341 P.3d 280 (Wash. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(4) — 115 cases
State v. Suleiman, 143 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2006). “¶19 Similar to the analysis applicable for the “clearly too lenient” aggravating factor at issue in Hughes, this court has recognized factual bases that must support a finding that the victim was particularly vulnerable. Moreover, the conclusion that a victim is particularly…”
State v. Stubbs, 240 P.3d 143 (Wash. 2010). “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wash. 2d 117 (Wash. 2010). “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
State v. Alvarado, 164 Wash. 2d 556 (Wash. 2008).
State v. Alvarado, 192 P.3d 345 (Wash. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(4)(a) — 16 cases
State v. Davis, 340 P.3d 820 (Wash. 2014).
State v. Stubbs, 240 P.3d 143 (Wash. 2010). “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
State v. Stubbs, 170 Wash. 2d 117 (Wash. 2010). “It was subsequently recodified as RCW 9.94A.585 by Laws of 2001, chapter 10, section 6.”
State v. Griffin, 268 P.3d 924 (Wash. 2012).
State v. Davis, 315 P.3d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(4)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Knutz, 161 Wash. App. 395 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Garcia, 256 P.3d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Mann, 157 Wash. App. 428 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Mann, 237 P.3d 966 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State Of Washington v. Pedro Godinez, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(5) — 3 cases
State Of Washington, V Zachary Alan Fletcher, 500 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Suleiman, 143 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2006).
State Of Washington v. Pedro Karnaz Crenshaw (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(6) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Cecily Zorada McFarland, 492 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.585(7) — 54 cases
Dress v. Dep't of Corr., 279 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶5 Despite the provisions of RCW 9.94A.585(7), which provides for relief where DOC claims that there is an error of law in a judgment and sentence, the DOC never petitioned the court of appeals for review of the April 19, 2006, sentence.”
In re the Postsentence Review of Combs, 308 P.3d 763 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In re the Postsentence Review of Childers, 143 P.3d 831 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Gutierrez v. Dep't of Corr., 188 P.3d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
In re the Postsentence Review of Hudgens, 156 Wash. App. 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
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.