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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333 (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 an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, and the offender is not being supervised by the department, the court may modify its order of judgment and sentence and impose further punishment in accordance with this section.
(2) If an offender fails to comply with any of the nonfinancial conditions or requirements of a sentence the following provisions apply:
(a) The court, upon the motion of the state, or upon its own motion, shall require the offender to show cause why the offender should not be punished for the noncompliance. The court may issue a summons or a warrant of arrest for the offender's appearance;
(b) The state has the burden of showing noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence;
(c) If the court finds that a violation has been proved, it may impose the sanctions specified in RCW 9.94A.633(1). Alternatively, the court may:
(i) Convert a term of partial confinement to total confinement; or
(ii) Convert community restitution obligation to total or partial confinement;
(d) If the court finds that the violation was not willful, the court may modify its previous order regarding community restitution obligations; and
(e) If the violation involves a failure to undergo or comply with a mental health status evaluation and/or outpatient mental health treatment, the court shall seek a recommendation from the treatment provider or proposed treatment provider. Enforcement of orders concerning outpatient mental health treatment must reflect the availability of treatment and must pursue the least restrictive means of promoting participation in treatment. If the offender's failure to receive care essential for health and safety presents a risk of serious physical harm or probable harmful consequences, the civil detention and commitment procedures of chapter 71.05 RCW shall be considered in preference to incarceration in a local or state correctional facility.
(3) If an offender fails to pay legal financial obligations as a requirement of a sentence the following provisions apply:
(a) The court, upon the motion of the state, or upon its own motion, shall require the offender to show cause why the offender should not be punished for the noncompliance. The court may issue a summons or a warrant of arrest for the offender's appearance;
(b) The state has the burden of showing noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence;
(c) The court may not sanction the offender for failure to pay legal financial obligations unless the court finds, after a hearing and on the record, that the failure to pay is willful. A failure to pay is willful if the offender has the current ability to pay but refuses to do so. In determining whether the offender has the current ability to pay, the court shall inquire into and consider: (i) The offender's income and assets; (ii) the offender's basic living costs as defined by RCW 10.101.010 and other liabilities including child support and other legal financial obligations; and (iii) the offender's bona fide efforts to acquire additional resources. An offender who is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3) is presumed to lack the current ability to pay;
(d) If the court determines that the offender is homeless or a person who is mentally ill, as defined in RCW 71.24.025, failure to pay a legal financial obligation is not willful noncompliance and shall not subject the offender to penalties;
(e) If the court finds that a failure to pay is willful noncompliance, it may impose the sanctions specified in RCW 9.94A.633(1); and
(f) If the court finds that the violation was not willful, the court may, and if the court finds that the defendant is indigent as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3), the court shall modify the terms of payment of the legal financial obligations, reduce or waive nonrestitution legal financial obligations, or convert nonrestitution legal financial obligations to community restitution hours, if the jurisdiction operates a community restitution program, at the rate of no less than the state minimum wage established in RCW 49.46.020 for each hour of community restitution.
(4) Any time served in confinement awaiting a hearing on noncompliance shall be credited against any confinement ordered by the court.
(5) Nothing in this section prohibits the filing of escape charges if appropriate.
[ 2023 c 449 s 8; 2022 c 260 s 13; 2018 c 269 s 13; 2008 c 231 s 19.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 449: See note following RCW 13.40.058.
Construction—Effective date—2022 c 260: See notes following RCW 3.66.120.
Construction—2018 c 269: See note following RCW 10.82.090.
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 14 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: State Of Washington v. Michael Christopher Shelton, 378 P.3d 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Of Washington v. Michael Christopher Shelton, 378 P.3d 230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “94B-,040(3)(d); see also RCW 9.94A.6333. RCW 9.94A.6333 provides, in pertinent part: (1) If an offender violates any condition or requirement of a sentence, and the offender is not being supervised by the department, the court may modify its order of judgment and sentence and…”
State Of Washington v. Karen A. Conway, 438 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “She cites former RCW 9.94A.6333 (2008), former RCW 9.94A.634 (2002)5, and former RCW 10.”
State v. Schwartz, 450 P.3d 141 (Wash. 2019). “3d 848 (2010); see former RCW 9.94A.6333 (2008). In 2018, this law was amended by House Bill 1783 to provide that a court may sanction a defendant for failure to pay LFOs only when the failure to pay is willful.”
State v. Button, 339 P.3d 182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “¶12 The trial court also lacked statutory authority to impose this condition as a sanction under RCW 9.94A.6333 3 and RCW 9.94A.633. 4 If an offender who is not being *448 supervised by the Department of Corrections violates any condition of sentence, the trial court may impose…”
State of Washington v. Matthew Thomas Schwartz, 429 P.3d 1080 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Schwartz’s judgment and sentence for the 2001 conviction had been modified pursuant to RCW 9.94A.6333 to impose five days’ confinement with credit for time served in October 2014, three days with credit for time served in January 2015, and most recently another three days with…”
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “The State argues that former RCW 9.94A.6333 (2015) applies only if the offender was subjected to a violation hearing.”
Sanders v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. (In re Sanders), 589 B.R. 874 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “Regardless of whether an LFO is discretionary or mandatory, Washington State permits courts to employ various means to ensure payment, often with punitive consequences for the defendant beyond normal *883 collection practices.”
State v. Bigsby (Wash. 2017). · cites it 4× “" Like RCW 9.94A.6333, subsections (7) and (8) distinguish those offenders the Department is supervising from those it is not.”
State Of Washington, V. Timothy Jay Morris (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” To impose sanctions for violating nonfinancial conditions, the statute requires that the court find that the State proved noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 9.94A.6333(2) provides that if a court finds noncompliance, it may impose sanctions specified in RCW…”
State Of Washington V. Jd Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f); RCW 10.01.160(3), (4) (relating to costs); RCW 10.”
State v. Danielson (Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(a), .633(1)(a)-(b). Courts cannot punish a person for failing to pay LFOs unless their failure to pay is 2 No.”
State of Washington v. Edward Leon Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Nelson’s primary direct appeal was still pending (mandate issued a month later) and 3 In case a DNA fee is imposed and a non-payment show cause occurs, RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f) authorizes a court to waive non-restitution LFOs, not including the crime assessment, if the offender is…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(1) — 1 case
State v. Bigsby (Wash. 2017). “" Like RCW 9.94A.6333, subsections (7) and (8) distinguish those offenders the Department is supervising from those it is not.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(2) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Timothy Jay Morris (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “” To impose sanctions for violating nonfinancial conditions, the statute requires that the court find that the State proved noncompliance by a preponderance of the evidence. RCW 9.94A.6333(2) provides that if a court finds noncompliance, it may impose sanctions specified in RCW…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(3) — 1 case
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The State argues that former RCW 9.94A.6333 (2015) applies only if the offender was subjected to a violation hearing.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Danielson (Wash. 2025). “RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(a), .633(1)(a)-(b). Courts cannot punish a person for failing to pay LFOs unless their failure to pay is 2 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Danielson (Wash. 2025). “RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(a), .633(1)(a)-(b). Courts cannot punish a person for failing to pay LFOs unless their failure to pay is 2 No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.6333(3)(f) — 5 cases
State Of Washington, Appellant/cross-respondent v. Katrina Lacy, Respondent/cross-appellant (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The State argues that former RCW 9.94A.6333 (2015) applies only if the offender was subjected to a violation hearing.”
State Of Washington V. Jd Miller (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f); RCW 10.01.160(3), (4) (relating to costs); RCW 10.”
State of Washington v. Edward Leon Nelson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Nelson’s primary direct appeal was still pending (mandate issued a month later) and 3 In case a DNA fee is imposed and a non-payment show cause occurs, RCW 9.94A.6333(3)(f) authorizes a court to waive non-restitution LFOs, not including the crime assessment, if the offender is…”
State of Washington v. William Matthew Watson (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
State of Washington v. William Matthew Watson (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.