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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660 (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) An offender is eligible for the special drug offender sentencing alternative if:
(a) The offender is convicted of a felony that is not a violent offense and the violation does not involve a sentence enhancement under RCW 9.94A.533 (3) or (4);
(b) The offender is convicted of a felony that is not a felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug under RCW 46.61.502(6) or felony physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug under RCW 46.61.504(6);
(c) The offender has no current or prior convictions for a sex offense for which the offender is currently or may be required to register pursuant to RCW 9A.44.130;
(d) The offender has no prior convictions in this state, and no prior convictions for an equivalent out-of-state or federal offense, for the following offenses during the following time frames:
(i) Robbery in the second degree that did not involve the use of a firearm and was not reduced from robbery in the first degree within seven years before conviction of the current offense; or
(ii) Any other violent offense within ten years before conviction of the current offense;
(e) For a violation of the uniform controlled substances act under chapter 69.50 RCW or a criminal solicitation to commit such a violation under chapter 9A.28 RCW, the offense involved only a small quantity of the particular controlled substance as determined by the judge upon consideration of such factors as the weight, purity, packaging, sale price, and street value of the controlled substance;
(f) The offender has not been found by the United States attorney general to be subject to a deportation detainer or order and does not become subject to a deportation order during the period of the sentence; and
(g) The offender has not received a drug offender sentencing alternative more than once in the prior ten years before the current offense.
(2) A motion for a special drug offender sentencing alternative may be made by the court, the offender, or the state.
(3) If the sentencing court determines that the offender is eligible for an alternative sentence under this section and that the alternative sentence is appropriate, the court shall waive imposition of a sentence within the standard sentence range and impose a sentence consisting of either a prison-based alternative under RCW 9.94A.662 or a residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative under RCW 9.94A.664. The residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative is only available if the midpoint of the standard range is twenty-six months or less.
(4)(a) To assist the court in making its determination, the court may order the department to complete either or both a risk assessment report and a substance use disorder screening report as provided in RCW 9.94A.500.
(b) To assist the court in making its determination in domestic violence cases, the court shall order the department to complete a presentence investigation and a chemical dependency screening report as provided in RCW 9.94A.500, unless otherwise specifically waived by the court.
(5) If the court is considering imposing a sentence under the residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative, the court may order an examination of the offender by the department. The examination must be performed by an agency certified by the department of health to provide substance use disorder services. The examination shall, at a minimum, address the following issues:
(a) Whether the offender suffers from a substance use disorder;
(b) Whether the substance use disorder is such that there is a probability that criminal behavior will occur in the future;
(c) Whether effective treatment for the offender's substance use disorder is available from a provider that has been licensed or certified by the department of health, and where applicable, whether effective domestic violence perpetrator treatment is available from a state-certified domestic violence treatment provider pursuant to RCW 43.20A.735; and
(d) Whether the offender and the community will benefit from the use of the alternative.
(6) When a court imposes a sentence of community custody under this section:
(a) The court may impose conditions as provided in RCW 9.94A.703 and may impose other affirmative conditions as the court considers appropriate. In addition, an offender may be required to pay thirty dollars per month while on community custody to offset the cost of monitoring for alcohol or controlled substances, or in cases of domestic violence for monitoring with global positioning system technology for compliance with a no-contact order.
(b) The department may impose conditions and sanctions as authorized in RCW 9.94A.704 and 9.94A.737.
(7)(a) The court may bring any offender sentenced under this section back into court at any time on its own initiative to evaluate the offender's progress in treatment or to determine if any violations of the conditions of the sentence have occurred.
(b) If the offender is brought back to court, the court may modify the conditions of the community custody or impose sanctions under (c) of this subsection.
(c) The court may order the offender to serve a term of total confinement within the standard range of the offender's current offense at any time during the period of community custody if the offender violates the conditions or requirements of the sentence or if the offender is failing to make satisfactory progress in treatment.
(d) An offender ordered to serve a term of total confinement under (c) of this subsection shall receive credit for time previously served in total or partial confinement and inpatient treatment under this section, and shall receive fifty percent credit for time previously served in community custody under this section.
(8) In serving a term of community custody imposed upon failure to complete, or administrative termination from, the special drug offender sentencing alternative program, the offender shall receive no credit for time served in community custody prior to termination of the offender's participation in the program.
(9) An offender sentenced under this section shall be subject to all rules relating to earned release time with respect to any period served in total confinement.
(10) The Washington state institute for public policy shall submit a report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by November 1, 2022, analyzing the effectiveness of the drug offender sentencing alternative in reducing recidivism among various offender populations. An additional report is due November 1, 2028, and every five years thereafter. The Washington state institute for public policy may coordinate with the department and the caseload forecast council in tracking data and preparing the report.
[ 2021 c 215 s 102; 2020 c 252 s 1. Prior: 2019 c 325 s 5002; 2019 c 263 s 502; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 524; 2009 c 389 s 3; (2009 c 389 s 2 expired August 1, 2009); 2008 c 231 s 30; 2006 c 339 s 302; 2006 c 73 s 10; 2005 c 460 s 1; prior: 2002 c 290 s 20; 2002 c 175 s 10; 2001 c 10 s 4; 2000 c 28 s 19.]

Notes:

Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Effective date—2020 c 252: "This act takes effect January 1, 2021." [ 2020 c 252 s 5.]
Effective date—2019 c 325: See note following RCW 71.24.011.
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Effective date—2009 c 389 ss 1 and 3-5: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.
Effective date—2009 c 389 s 2: "Section 2 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2009]." [ 2009 c 389 s 7.]
Expiration date—2009 c 389 s 2: "Section 2 of this act expires August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 389 s 9.]
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.
Intent—Part headings not law—2006 c 339: See notes following RCW 74.34.020.
Effective date—2006 c 73: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Application—2005 c 460: "This act applies to sentences imposed on or after October 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 460 s 2.]
Effective date—2005 c 460: "This act takes effect October 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 460 s 3.]
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.
Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.
Intent—Effective date—2001 c 10: See notes following RCW 9.94A.505.
Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.
PDF

RCW 9.94A.660

Drug offender sentencing alternative—Prison-based or residential alternative. (Effective January 1, 2026.)

(1) An offender is eligible for the special drug offender sentencing alternative if:
(a) The offender is convicted of a felony that is not a violent offense and the violation does not involve a sentence enhancement under RCW 9.94A.533 (3) or (4);
(b) The offender is convicted of a felony that is not a felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug under RCW 46.61.502(6) or felony physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug under RCW 46.61.504(6);
(c) The offender has no current or prior convictions for a sex offense for which the offender is currently or may be required to register pursuant to RCW 9A.44.130;
(d) The offender has no prior convictions in this state, and no prior convictions for an equivalent out-of-state or federal offense, for the following offenses during the following time frames:
(i) Robbery in the second degree that did not involve the use of a firearm and was not reduced from robbery in the first degree within seven years before conviction of the current offense; or
(ii) Any other violent offense within 10 years before conviction of the current offense;
(e) For a violation of the uniform controlled substances act under chapter 69.50 RCW or a criminal solicitation to commit such a violation under chapter 9A.28 RCW, the offense involved only a small quantity of the particular controlled substance as determined by the judge upon consideration of such factors as the weight, purity, packaging, sale price, and street value of the controlled substance;
(f) The offender has not been found by the United States attorney general to be subject to a deportation detainer or order and does not become subject to a deportation order during the period of the sentence; and
(g) The offender has not received a drug offender sentencing alternative under this section, or a drug offender sentencing alternative for driving under the influence under RCW 9.94A.661, more than once in the prior 10 years before the current offense.
(2) A motion for a special drug offender sentencing alternative may be made by the court, the offender, or the state.
(3) If the sentencing court determines that the offender is eligible for an alternative sentence under this section and that the alternative sentence is appropriate, the court shall waive imposition of a sentence within the standard sentence range and impose a sentence consisting of either a prison-based alternative under RCW 9.94A.662 or a residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative under RCW 9.94A.664. The residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative is only available if the midpoint of the standard sentence range is 26 months or less.
(4)(a) To assist the court in making its determination, the court may order the department to complete either or both a risk assessment report and a substance use disorder screening report as provided in RCW 9.94A.500.
(b) To assist the court in making its determination in domestic violence cases, the court shall order the department to complete a presentence investigation and a chemical dependency screening report as provided in RCW 9.94A.500, unless otherwise specifically waived by the court.
(5) If the court is considering imposing a sentence under the residential substance use disorder treatment-based alternative, the court may order an examination of the offender by the department. The examination must be performed by an agency licensed or certified by the department of health to provide substance use disorder services. The examination shall, at a minimum, address the following issues:
(a) Whether the offender suffers from a substance use disorder;
(b) Whether effective treatment for the offender's substance use disorder is available from a provider that has been licensed or certified by the department of health, and where applicable, whether effective domestic violence perpetrator treatment is available from a state-certified domestic violence treatment provider pursuant to RCW 43.20A.735; and
(c) Whether the offender and the community will benefit from the use of the alternative.
(6) When a court imposes a sentence of community custody under this section:
(a) The court may impose conditions as provided in RCW 9.94A.703 and may impose other affirmative conditions as the court considers appropriate. In addition, an offender may be required to pay $30 per month while on community custody to offset the cost of monitoring for alcohol or controlled substances, or in cases of domestic violence for monitoring with global positioning system technology for compliance with a no-contact order.
(b) The department may impose conditions and sanctions as authorized in RCW 9.94A.704 and 9.94A.737.
(7)(a) The court may bring any offender sentenced under this section back into court at any time on its own initiative to evaluate the offender's progress in treatment or to determine if any violations of the conditions of the sentence have occurred.
(b) If the offender is brought back to court, the court may modify the conditions of the community custody or impose sanctions under (c) of this subsection.
(c) The court may order the offender to serve a term of total confinement within the standard sentence range of the offender's current offense at any time during the period of community custody if the offender violates the conditions or requirements of the sentence or if the offender is failing to make satisfactory progress in treatment.
(d) An offender ordered to serve a term of total confinement under (c) of this subsection shall receive credit for time previously served in total or partial confinement and inpatient treatment under this section, and shall receive 50 percent credit for time previously served in community custody under this section.
(8) In serving a term of community custody imposed upon failure to complete, or administrative termination from, the special drug offender sentencing alternative program, the offender shall receive no credit for time served in community custody prior to termination of the offender's participation in the program.
(9) An offender sentenced under this section shall be subject to all rules relating to earned release time with respect to any period served in total confinement.
(10) The Washington state institute for public policy shall submit a report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by November 1, 2022, analyzing the effectiveness of the drug offender sentencing alternative in reducing recidivism among various offender populations. An additional report is due November 1, 2028, and every five years thereafter. The Washington state institute for public policy may coordinate with the department and the caseload forecast council in tracking data and preparing the report.
[ 2024 c 306 s 9; 2021 c 215 s 102; 2020 c 252 s 1. Prior: 2019 c 325 s 5002; 2019 c 263 s 502; 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 524; 2009 c 389 s 3; (2009 c 389 s 2 expired August 1, 2009); 2008 c 231 s 30; 2006 c 339 s 302; 2006 c 73 s 10; 2005 c 460 s 1; prior: 2002 c 290 s 20; 2002 c 175 s 10; 2001 c 10 s 4; 2000 c 28 s 19.]

Notes:

Effective date—2024 c 306: See note following RCW 9.94A.661.
Effective date—2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900.
Effective date—2020 c 252: "This act takes effect January 1, 2021." [ 2020 c 252 s 5.]
Effective date—2019 c 325: See note following RCW 71.24.011.
Findings—Intent—2019 c 263 ss 202-803: See note following RCW 10.01.240.
Effective date—2019 c 263 ss 501-504, 601, 602, and 701-708: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Effective date—2009 c 389 ss 1 and 3-5: See note following RCW 9.94A.505.
Effective date—2009 c 389 s 2: "Section 2 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 7, 2009]." [ 2009 c 389 s 7.]
Expiration date—2009 c 389 s 2: "Section 2 of this act expires August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 389 s 9.]
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.
Intent—Part headings not law—2006 c 339: See notes following RCW 74.34.020.
Effective date—2006 c 73: See note following RCW 46.61.502.
Application—2005 c 460: "This act applies to sentences imposed on or after October 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 460 s 2.]
Effective date—2005 c 460: "This act takes effect October 1, 2005." [ 2005 c 460 s 3.]
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.
Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.
Intent—Effective date—2001 c 10: See notes following RCW 9.94A.505.
Technical correction bill—2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 170 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State v. Grayson, 111 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Grayson, 111 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 5× “See RCW 9.94A.660. Under a DOSA sentence, the defendant serves only about one-half of a standard range sentence in prison and receives substance abuse *338 treatment while incarcerated.”
State v. Williams, 65 P.3d 1214 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 4× “We conclude that such determinations are indeed appealable and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and direct it to consider the merits of the State's substantive challenges to the defendant's DOSA sentence. FACTS In May 2000, Darin Williams pleaded guilty to manufacturing,…”
State v. Williams, 65 P.3d 1214 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “ISSUE May the State appeal a trial court’s determination of a defendant’s eligibility for alternative sentencing under the DOSA provisions of RCW 9.94A.660? ANALYSIS As a general rule, the length of a criminal sentence imposed by a superior court is not subject to appellate…”
State v. Harkness, 145 Wash. App. 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “By analogy, RCW 9.94A.660 allows the court to give a DOSA at initial sentencing but does not provide for modification to a DOSA.”
In Re Albritton, 180 P.3d 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “¶ 11 Albritton claims that under former RCW 9.94A.660, he is entitled to credit for the community custody portion of his DOSA sentence regardless of whether he failed to report to his CCO, was in confinement for violating the conditions of his DOSA sentence, or was incarcerated…”
In re the Postsentence Review of Combs, 308 P.3d 763 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “Separation of Powers ¶14 The DOC argues that the trial court’s order violates the separation of powers doctrine because it prevents the DOC from applying the tolling statute to Combs’s sentence.”
State v. Mohamed, 350 P.3d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “655 or a drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) under RCW 9.94A.660. He also sought a mitigated exceptional sentence based on what he called “sentencing entrapment” and “sentencing manipulation.”
State v. Hender, 324 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “¶9 The purpose of RCW 9.94A.660, known as DOSA, is to provide meaningful treatment and rehabilitation incentives for those convicted of drug crimes when the trial judge concludes it would be in the best interests of the individual and the community.”
State v. Roy, 107 P.3d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “We decide the *751 court lacked statutory authority to revoke his DOSA sentence because RCW 9.94A.660 grants that authority to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and reverse.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Albritton, 143 Wash. App. 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “¶11 Albritton claims that under former RCW 9.94A.660, he is entitled to credit for the community custody portion of his DOSA sentence regardless of whether he failed to report to his CCO, was in confinement for violating the conditions of his DOSA sentence, or was incarcerated…”
State v. Barton, 121 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “Barton’s request for sentencing under RCW 9.94A.660, the special drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA).”
State v. Roy, 126 Wash. App. 124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “Roy filed a motion to strike the hearing, contending RCW 9.94A.660 gives the authority to revoke a DOSA sentence to the DOC.”
Show all 170 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1) — 21 cases
State v. Smith, 118 Wash. App. 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Smith, 75 P.3d 986 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Barton, 121 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Barton’s request for sentencing under RCW 9.94A.660, the special drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA).”
State v. Barton, 90 P.3d 1138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State Of Washington v. Steven James Van Noy, 416 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(a) — 6 cases
In re Postsentence Review of: Leanne Marie Hardy, 442 P.3d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V. Elliahs Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington, V. Scott Joseph Perrin (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
State of Washington v. Jamie L. Waltari (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Washington v. Kevin P. Ehlert, 496 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(a)(b)(d) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Steven James Van Noy, 416 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(b) — 1 case
In re the Pers. Restraint of Fonseca, 132 P.3d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Williams, 48 P.3d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Bramme, 64 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
State Of Washington v. Steven James Van Noy, 416 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington, V Mark Virgil Perry Jr., Ii (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(d) — 5 cases
State v. Smith, 173 P.3d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
In re Postsentence Review of: Leanne Marie Hardy, 442 P.3d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Washington v. David William Brown (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Washington v. Jeffrey Gerard (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington, V Steven B. Perra (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(e) — 1 case
In re Postsentence Review of: Leanne Marie Hardy, 442 P.3d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(f) — 1 case
In re Postsentence Review of: Leanne Marie Hardy, 442 P.3d 14 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(1)(g) — 5 cases
State Of Washington v. Steven James Van Noy, 416 P.3d 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Kevin P. Ehlert, 496 P.3d 738 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington v. Brian Crute (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State Of Washington v. Miriam E. Whitman (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Post-sentence Petition Of: Aikeem Lloyd Roberts (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(10) — 1 case
In Re Albritton, 180 P.3d 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 11 Albritton claims that under former RCW 9.94A.660, he is entitled to credit for the community custody portion of his DOSA sentence regardless of whether he failed to report to his CCO, was in confinement for violating the conditions of his DOSA sentence, or was incarcerated…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(2) — 28 cases
State v. Grayson, 111 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2005). “See RCW 9.94A.660. Under a DOSA sentence, the defendant serves only about one-half of a standard range sentence in prison and receives substance abuse *338 treatment while incarcerated.”
State v. Harkness, 145 Wash. App. 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “By analogy, RCW 9.94A.660 allows the court to give a DOSA at initial sentencing but does not provide for modification to a DOSA.”
State v. Williams, 65 P.3d 1214 (Wash. 2003). “ISSUE May the State appeal a trial court’s determination of a defendant’s eligibility for alternative sentencing under the DOSA provisions of RCW 9.94A.660? ANALYSIS As a general rule, the length of a criminal sentence imposed by a superior court is not subject to appellate…”
State v. Williams, 65 P.3d 1214 (Wash. 2003). “We conclude that such determinations are indeed appealable and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals and direct it to consider the merits of the State's substantive challenges to the defendant's DOSA sentence. FACTS In May 2000, Darin Williams pleaded guilty to manufacturing,…”
State v. White, 97 P.3d 34 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Murray, 116 P.3d 1072 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(2)(d)(vii) — 2 cases
In Re Price, 240 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Price, 157 Wash. App. 889 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(3) — 34 cases
State v. Mohamed, 350 P.3d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “655 or a drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) under RCW 9.94A.660. He also sought a mitigated exceptional sentence based on what he called “sentencing entrapment” and “sentencing manipulation.”
State v. Yancey, 434 P.3d 518 (Wash. 2019).
State v. Roy, 107 P.3d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “We decide the *751 court lacked statutory authority to revoke his DOSA sentence because RCW 9.94A.660 grants that authority to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and reverse.”
State v. Roy, 126 Wash. App. 124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Roy filed a motion to strike the hearing, contending RCW 9.94A.660 gives the authority to revoke a DOSA sentence to the DOC.”
State of Washington v. Lelbert Louise Williams, 199 Wash. App. 99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(3)(a) — 8 cases
In Re Blackburn, 232 P.3d 1091 (Wash. 2010).
State v. Roy, 107 P.3d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “We decide the *751 court lacked statutory authority to revoke his DOSA sentence because RCW 9.94A.660 grants that authority to the Department of Corrections (DOC) and reverse.”
State v. Roy, 126 Wash. App. 124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Roy filed a motion to strike the hearing, contending RCW 9.94A.660 gives the authority to revoke a DOSA sentence to the DOC.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Blackburn, 168 Wash. 2d 881 (Wash. 2010).
In Re Price, 240 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(4) — 9 cases
State v. Harkness, 145 Wash. App. 678 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “By analogy, RCW 9.94A.660 allows the court to give a DOSA at initial sentencing but does not provide for modification to a DOSA.”
State of Washington v. Lelbert Louise Williams, 199 Wash. App. 99 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Gutierrez v. Dep't of Corr., 188 P.3d 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Smith, 142 Wash. App. 122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Harkness, 186 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(4)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Jessica Marie Mullins (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5) — 14 cases
In Re Albritton, 180 P.3d 790 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 11 Albritton claims that under former RCW 9.94A.660, he is entitled to credit for the community custody portion of his DOSA sentence regardless of whether he failed to report to his CCO, was in confinement for violating the conditions of his DOSA sentence, or was incarcerated…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Albritton, 143 Wash. App. 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “¶11 Albritton claims that under former RCW 9.94A.660, he is entitled to credit for the community custody portion of his DOSA sentence regardless of whether he failed to report to his CCO, was in confinement for violating the conditions of his DOSA sentence, or was incarcerated…”
State v. Davis, 160 Wash. App. 471 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Mohamed, 350 P.3d 671 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “655 or a drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) under RCW 9.94A.660. He also sought a mitigated exceptional sentence based on what he called “sentencing entrapment” and “sentencing manipulation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(a) — 2 cases
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Matthew Ray Douglas Schley, 392 P.3d 1099 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Smith, 173 P.3d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(a)(iv) — 2 cases
State Of Washington v. Shaitaya Mccool (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State Of Washington, Resp-cross App v. John J. Bucko, App-cross Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 142 Wash. App. 122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Smith, 173 P.3d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Acrey, 146 P.3d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Acrey, 135 Wash. App. 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(d) — 1 case
State Of Washington, V. Curtis Jackson, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(5)(e) — 1 case
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Michael Milam (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(6) — 1 case
State v. Bigsby (Wash. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(6)(a) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Joseph Edward Geyer, 496 P.3d 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
State of Washington v. Nathaniel Lewis Vickers (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(7) — 6 cases
In re the Postsentence Review of Combs, 308 P.3d 763 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Separation of Powers ¶14 The DOC argues that the trial court’s order violates the separation of powers doctrine because it prevents the DOC from applying the tolling statute to Combs’s sentence.”
Post-sentence Petition Of: Aikeem Lloyd Roberts (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
In re Bufalini, 423 P.3d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Breanna Thorne (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Prp Of Paul Bufalini (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(7)(a) — 9 cases
State v. Acrey, 146 P.3d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Acrey, 135 Wash. App. 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State of Washington v. Eduardo Miranda Salazar, 468 P.3d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Washington v. Taylor Alexandra Church, 428 P.3d 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State Of Washington v. Shane I. Vandervort, 452 P.3d 1267 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(7)(b) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Eduardo Miranda Salazar, 468 P.3d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(7)(c) — 13 cases
State v. Hender, 324 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶9 The purpose of RCW 9.94A.660, known as DOSA, is to provide meaningful treatment and rehabilitation incentives for those convicted of drug crimes when the trial judge concludes it would be in the best interests of the individual and the community.”
State Of Washington v. Taylor Alexandra Church, 428 P.3d 150 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Eduardo Miranda Salazar, 468 P.3d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Postsentence Review of Bercier, 178 Wash. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In re Bufalini, 423 P.3d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(7)(d) — 4 cases
In re the Postsentence Review of Combs, 308 P.3d 763 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “Separation of Powers ¶14 The DOC argues that the trial court’s order violates the separation of powers doctrine because it prevents the DOC from applying the tolling statute to Combs’s sentence.”
In re Postsentence Review of Bercier, 178 Wash. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In re the Post-Sentence Review of: Gabriel Lee Bercier (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of: Rai Goulsby (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(S)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Corey J. Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(l) — 2 cases
State of Washington v. Carl K. Matheny (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
State of Washington v. Ronald Frank Hender (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hender, 324 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶9 The purpose of RCW 9.94A.660, known as DOSA, is to provide meaningful treatment and rehabilitation incentives for those convicted of drug crimes when the trial judge concludes it would be in the best interests of the individual and the community.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Williams, 112 Wash. App. 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Bramme, 115 Wash. App. 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.660(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 142 Wash. App. 122 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
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.