Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (2026)

Consecutive or concurrent sentences

✓ 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) Except as provided in (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection, whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the sentence range for each current offense shall be determined by using all other current and prior convictions as if they were prior convictions for the purpose of the offender score: PROVIDED, That if the court enters a finding that some or all of the current offenses encompass the same criminal conduct then those current offenses shall be counted as one crime. Sentences imposed under this subsection shall be served concurrently. Consecutive sentences may only be imposed under the exceptional sentence provisions of RCW 9.94A.535. "Same criminal conduct," as used in this subsection, means two or more crimes that require the same criminal intent, are committed at the same time and place, and involve the same victim. This definition applies in cases involving vehicular assault or vehicular homicide even if the victims occupied the same vehicle.

(b) Whenever a person is convicted of two or more serious violent offenses arising from separate and distinct criminal conduct, the standard sentence range for the offense with the highest seriousness level under RCW 9.94A.515 shall be determined using the offender's prior convictions and other current convictions that are not serious violent offenses in the offender score and the standard sentence range for other serious violent offenses shall be determined by using an offender score of zero. The standard sentence range for any offenses that are not serious violent offenses shall be determined according to (a) of this subsection. All sentences imposed under this subsection (1)(b) shall be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with sentences imposed under (a) of this subsection. Even if the court orders the confinement terms to run consecutively to each other, the terms of community custody shall run concurrently to each other, unless the court expressly orders the community custody terms to run consecutively to each other.

(c) If an offender is convicted under RCW 9.41.040 for unlawful possession of a firearm in the first or second degree and for the felony crimes of theft of a firearm or possession of a stolen firearm, or both, the standard sentence range for each of these current offenses shall be determined by using all other current and prior convictions, except other current convictions for the felony crimes listed in this subsection (1)(c), as if they were prior convictions. The offender shall serve consecutive sentences for each conviction of the felony crimes listed in this subsection (1)(c), and for each firearm unlawfully possessed.

(d) All sentences imposed under RCW 46.61.502(6), 46.61.504(6), or 46.61.5055(4) shall be served consecutively to any sentences imposed under RCW 46.20.740 and 46.20.750.

(2)(a) Whenever a person while under sentence for conviction of a felony commits another felony and is sentenced to another term of confinement, the latter term of confinement shall not begin until expiration of all prior terms of confinement. However, any terms of community custody shall run concurrently to each other, unless the court pronouncing the current sentence expressly orders that they be served consecutively.

(b) Whenever a second or later felony conviction results in consecutive community custody with conditions not currently in effect, under the prior sentence or sentences of community custody, the court may require that the conditions of community custody contained in the second or later sentence begin during the immediate term of community custody and continue throughout the duration of the consecutive term of community custody.

(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) of this section, whenever a person is sentenced for a felony that was committed while the person was not under sentence for conviction of a felony, the sentence shall run concurrently with any felony sentence which has been imposed by any court in this or another state or by a federal court subsequent to the commission of the crime being sentenced unless the court pronouncing the current sentence expressly orders that the confinement terms be served consecutively to each other. Even if the court orders the confinement terms to run consecutively to each other, the terms of community custody shall run concurrently to each other, unless the court expressly orders the community custody terms to run consecutively to each other.

(4) Whenever any person granted probation under RCW 9.95.210 or 9.92.060, or both, has the probationary sentence revoked and a prison sentence imposed, that sentence shall run consecutively to any sentence imposed pursuant to this chapter, unless the court pronouncing the subsequent sentence expressly orders that they be served concurrently.

(5) In the case of consecutive sentences, all periods of total confinement shall be served before any partial confinement, community restitution, community supervision, or any other requirement or conditions of any of the sentences. Except for exceptional sentences as authorized under RCW 9.94A.535, if two or more sentences that run consecutively include periods of community supervision, the aggregate of the community supervision period shall not exceed twenty-four months.

[ 2020 c 276 s 1; 2015 2nd sp.s. c 3 s 13; 2002 c 175 s 7; 2000 c 28 s 14; 1999 c 352 s 11; 1998 c 235 s 2; 1996 c 199 s 3; 1995 c 167 s 2; 1990 c 3 s 704. Prior: 1988 c 157 s 5; 1988 c 143 s 24; 1987 c 456 s 5; 1986 c 257 s 28; 1984 c 209 s 25; 1983 c 115 s 11. Formerly RCW 9.94A.400.]

Notes:

Application—2020 c 276: "The department of corrections must recalculate the scheduled end dates for terms of community custody, community supervision, and community placement so that they run concurrently to previously imposed sentences of community custody, community supervision, community placement, probation, and parole, unless the court pronouncing the current sentence has expressly required such terms to run consecutively. This section applies to each offender currently in confinement or under active supervision, regardless of whether the offender is sentenced after June 11, 2020, and regardless of whether the offender's date of offense occurred prior to June 11, 2020, or after." [ 2020 c 276 s 3.]

Legislative declaration—2020 c 276: "The legislature declares that the department of corrections' recalculations of community custody terms pursuant to this act do not create any expectations that a particular community custody term will end before July 1, 2020, and offenders have no reason to conclude that the recalculation of their community custody terms before July 1, 2020, is an entitlement or creates any liberty interest in their community custody term ending before July 1, 2020." [ 2020 c 276 s 4.]

Authority—Implementation—2020 c 276: "The department of corrections has the authority to begin implementing this act upon June 11, 2020." [ 2020 c 276 s 5.]

Retroactive application—2020 c 276: "This act applies retroactively and prospectively, regardless of the date of an offender's underlying offense." [ 2020 c 276 s 6.]

Finding—Intent—2015 2nd sp.s. c 3: See note following RCW 10.21.055.

Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.

Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.

Severability—1996 c 199: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.

Application—1988 c 157: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.

Applicability—1988 c 143 ss 21-24: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 761 cases (164 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax, 193 Wash. App. 667 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax, 193 Wash. App. 667 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 33× “Rodgers raise similar challenges to (1) the proper application ofRCW 9.94A.589, (2) community custody conditions imposed, (3) the 5 l No.”

State v. Chenoweth, 370 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 15× “For the reasons discussed below, in my view, the circumstances of this case warrant counting the six pairs of incest and child rape convictions, based on six separate incidents of sexual intercourse, as six single crimes for sentencing purposes under RCW 9.94A.589. Accordingly,…”

State v. Buck, 544 P.3d 506 (Wash. 2024). · cites it 82× “400, which is today’s RCW 9.94A.589. FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT, 48th Leg.”

State v. Cubias, 120 P.3d 929 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 20× “2d 403 (2004), is contrary to the clear holding of those cases, both with regard to exceptional consecutive sentences imposed under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) and consecutive sentences for serious violent offenses imposed under RCW 9.”

State v. Cubias, 155 Wash. 2d 549 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 20× “” RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). As long as the judge does not find any new facts beyond those contained in the jury verdict in determining whether the defendant’s acts constitute “separate and distinct criminal conduct,” a consecutive sentence under RCW 9.”

State v. Yates, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 12× “¶ 99 Yates contends that under RCW 9.94A.589, his sentence for the Pierce County crimes should run consecutively to his Spokane County sentence: (1)(a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this subsection, whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the…”

In re the Pers. Restraint of Mulholland, 166 P.3d 677 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 16× “It provides, “A departure from the standards in RCW 9.94A.589 (1) and (2) governing whether sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently is an exceptional sentence subject to the limitations in this section, and may be appealed by the offender or the state as set…”

State v. Graciano, 295 P.3d 219 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 12× “¶20 The dissent’s assertion that the statute is silent or “neutral” as to who bears this burden is simply unsupported by the plain language of RCW 9.94A.589. Dissent at 544. Same criminal conduct does not have a constitutional *540 dimension, and the legislature undoubtedly…”

State v. Yates, 161 Wash. 2d 714 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 9× “¶99 Yates contends that under RCW 9.94A.589, his sentence for the Pierce County crimes should run consecutively to his Spokane County sentence: (1)(a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this subsection, whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the…”

In Re Pers. Restraint of VanDelft, 147 P.3d 573 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 15× “589(1)(b) (hereinafter (1)(b)), sentences for separate and distinct serious violent offenses, including attempted first degree kidnapping, "shall be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with sentences [for other felonies] imposed under (a) of this subsection.”

State of Washington v. Anthony Laurence Wright, 493 P.3d 1220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 15× “If it has any relevance, it is that the legislature made no corresponding change to what courts can consider when sentencing or resentencing an offender under RCW 9.94A.589, which is what we are dealing with here.”

State v. Jacobs, 115 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 6× “In RCW 9.94A.589 the legislature also specified that courts must impose consecutive sentences for certain firearm related offenses.”

Show all 761 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1) — 79 cases

In re the Pers. Restraint of Mulholland, 166 P.3d 677 (Wash. 2007). “It provides, “A departure from the standards in RCW 9.94A.589 (1) and (2) governing whether sentences are to be served consecutively or concurrently is an exceptional sentence subject to the limitations in this section, and may be appealed by the offender or the state as set…”

State of Washington v. Anthony Laurence Wright, 493 P.3d 1220 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “If it has any relevance, it is that the legislature made no corresponding change to what courts can consider when sentencing or resentencing an offender under RCW 9.94A.589, which is what we are dealing with here.”

State v. Yates, 168 P.3d 359 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 99 Yates contends that under RCW 9.94A.589, his sentence for the Pierce County crimes should run consecutively to his Spokane County sentence: (1)(a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this subsection, whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the…”

State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax, 193 Wash. App. 667 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Rodgers raise similar challenges to (1) the proper application ofRCW 9.94A.589, (2) community custody conditions imposed, (3) the 5 l No.”

State v. Ross, 95 P.3d 1225 (Wash. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1)(A) — 1 case

State of Washington v. Dalton Scott Potter (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1)(a) — 443 cases

State v. Chenoweth, 370 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2016). “For the reasons discussed below, in my view, the circumstances of this case warrant counting the six pairs of incest and child rape convictions, based on six separate incidents of sexual intercourse, as six single crimes for sentencing purposes under RCW 9.94A.589. Accordingly,…”

State v. Cubias, 120 P.3d 929 (Wash. 2005). “2d 403 (2004), is contrary to the clear holding of those cases, both with regard to exceptional consecutive sentences imposed under RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a) and consecutive sentences for serious violent offenses imposed under RCW 9.”

In Re Pers. Restraint of VanDelft, 147 P.3d 573 (Wash. 2006). “589(1)(b) (hereinafter (1)(b)), sentences for separate and distinct serious violent offenses, including attempted first degree kidnapping, "shall be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with sentences [for other felonies] imposed under (a) of this subsection.”

State Of Washington, Res/cross-app. v. George Donald Hatt, Jr., App/cross-res., 452 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

State v. Vance, 168 Wash. 2d 754 (Wash. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1)(a)(2002) — 1 case

State Of Washington v. Elizabeth Anne Ewing (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1)(b) — 97 cases

State v. Miller, 371 P.3d 528 (Wash. 2016).

State v. Louis, 120 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2005).

State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(1)(c) — 35 cases

State v. Drath, 431 P.3d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

State v. Jacobs, 115 P.3d 281 (Wash. 2005). “In RCW 9.94A.589 the legislature also specified that courts must impose consecutive sentences for certain firearm related offenses.”

State of Washington v. Cecily Zorada McFarland, 492 P.3d 829 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

State Of Washington, V Eric S. Barnett, 506 P.3d 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(2) — 6 cases

In re the Pers. Restraint of Green, 283 P.3d 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

State v. Champion, 140 P.3d 633 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

State Of Washington, V. Joshua David Michael (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

State of Washington v. Thomas Ralph Leviton (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(2)(a) — 27 cases

State v. Buck, 544 P.3d 506 (Wash. 2024). “400, which is today’s RCW 9.94A.589. FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT, 48th Leg.”

Dress v. Dep't of Corr., 279 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

State v. Elmore, 177 P.3d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

State v. King, 145 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

In re the Pers. Restraint of Green, 283 P.3d 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(3) — 53 cases

State v. Yates, 161 Wash. 2d 714 (Wash. 2007). “¶99 Yates contends that under RCW 9.94A.589, his sentence for the Pierce County crimes should run consecutively to his Spokane County sentence: (1)(a) Except as provided in (b) or (c) of this subsection, whenever a person is to be sentenced for two or more current offenses, the…”

State v. King, 202 P.3d 351 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

State v. King, 149 Wash. App. 96 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

In re the Pers. Restraint of Green, 283 P.3d 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(5) — 2 cases

State v. Buck, 544 P.3d 506 (Wash. 2024). “400, which is today’s RCW 9.94A.589. FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT, 48th Leg.”

State of Washington v. Steven Allen Buck, 522 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(J) — 1 case

State of Washington v. Christopher George Nichols (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(J)(b) — 1 case

State v. Weatherwax (Wash. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(a) — 2 cases

Pers. Restraint Petition of Jose Mendez, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

State Of Washington, V. Michael Schluetz (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(b) — 2 cases

State Of Washington, V. Timothy Sean Martin (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Pers. Restraint Petition Of Brian K. Ronquillo (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(c) — 1 case

State Of Washington v. Anthony T. Clark (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(l) — 4 cases

State v. Borg, 145 Wash. 2d 329 (Wash. 2001).

State of Washington v. Christian Vern Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

State of Washington v. Joel Rodriguez Ramos (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

State of Washington v. Christopher George Nichols (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(l)(a) — 114 cases

State v. Graciano, 295 P.3d 219 (Wash. 2013). “¶20 The dissent’s assertion that the statute is silent or “neutral” as to who bears this burden is simply unsupported by the plain language of RCW 9.94A.589. Dissent at 544. Same criminal conduct does not have a constitutional *540 dimension, and the legislature undoubtedly…”

State v. Johnson, 320 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Cubias, 155 Wash. 2d 549 (Wash. 2005). “” RCW 9.94A.589(1)(a). As long as the judge does not find any new facts beyond those contained in the jury verdict in determining whether the defendant’s acts constitute “separate and distinct criminal conduct,” a consecutive sentence under RCW 9.”

State v. Knight, 309 P.3d 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

In re the Pers. Restraint of Finstad, 301 P.3d 450 (Wash. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(l)(b) — 33 cases

State v. Breaux, 167 Wash. App. 166 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

State v. Louis, 155 Wash. 2d 563 (Wash. 2005).

State v. Graham, 314 P.3d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589(l)(c) — 8 cases

State v. Haggin, 381 P.3d 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Davis, 315 P.3d 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

State of Washington v. Eric Allen Haggin (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. McFarland (Wash. 2017).

State v. Miller, 324 P.3d 791 (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.