Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6331 (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 sanction of confinement is imposed by the court, the following applies:

(a) If the sanction was imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.633(1), the sanction shall be served in a county facility.

(b) If the sanction was imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.633(2), the sanction shall be served in a state facility.

(2) If a sanction of confinement is imposed by the department, and if the offender is an inmate as defined by RCW 72.09.015, no more than eight days of the sanction, including any credit for time served, may be served in a county facility. The balance of the sanction shall be served in a state facility. In computing the eight-day period, weekends and holidays shall be excluded. The department may negotiate with local correctional authorities for an additional period of detention.

(3) If a sanction of confinement is imposed by the board, it shall be served in a state facility.

(4) Sanctions imposed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.670(3) shall be served in a county facility.

(5) As used in this section, "county facility" means a facility operated, licensed, or utilized under contract by the county, and "state facility" means a facility operated, licensed, or utilized under contract by the state.

[ 2008 c 231 s 17.]

Notes:

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: James D. Mock v. State Of Washington, Dep't Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James D. Mock v. State Of Washington, Dep't Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 9.94A.6331(1); State v. Biqsby, Wn.2d , 399 P.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6331(1) — 1 case

James D. Mock v. State Of Washington, Dep't Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 9.94A.6331(1); State v. Biqsby, Wn.2d , 399 P.”

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.