Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.95
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.0001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) "Board" means the indeterminate sentence review board.
(2) "Community custody" means that portion of an offender's sentence subject to controls including crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions from the court, the board, or the department of corrections based on risk to community safety, that is served under supervision in the community, and which may be modified or revoked for violations of release conditions.
(3) "Crime-related prohibition" has the meaning defined in RCW 9.94A.030.
(4) "Department" means the department of corrections.
(5) "Parole" means that portion of a person's sentence for a crime committed before July 1, 1984, served on conditional release in the community subject to board controls and revocation and under supervision of the department.
(6) "Secretary" means the secretary of the department of corrections or his or her designee.
[ 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 317.]

Notes:

Intent—Severability—Effective dates—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12: See notes following RCW 71.09.250.
Application—2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 ss 301-363: See note following RCW 9.94A.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · leading case: In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 474 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 474 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 5× “RCW 9.95.0001(2) (emphasis added).5 “Crime-related prohibition” is defined as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “(emphasis omitted) (quoting RCW 9.95.0001(2)). Looking at this language, the ISRB can impose both crime-related and affirmative conditions.”
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 9.95.0001(2). Under an indeterminate sentence, any violation of community custody conditions subjects the offender to arrest, detention, and further sanctions, including possible revocation of community custody and return to jail.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Lain, 315 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2013). “First, he argues that because “parole” is defined as the “portion of a person’s sentence ... served on conditional release in the community” and because Lain was not yet on conditional release in the community, there was no “parole” for the governor to cancel.”
In Re Pullman, 218 P.3d 913 (Wash. 2009). “94A RCW, replaced parole "good time credits" with the current "earned release time" system.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Pullman, 167 Wash. 2d 205 (Wash. 2009). “137, § 1; RCW 9.95.0001(5). That system of indeterminate sentencing was replaced with a structured determinate sentencing system designed to ensure proportional punishment.”
State v. Kelley, 133 Wash. App. 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.95.0001(5). RCW 71.09.020(15). In re Det.”
In re the Det. of Hovinga, 132 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 9.95.0001(5). The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is authorized to release a defendant on parole “after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work.”
In Re Det. of Hovinga, 130 P.3d 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “" RCW 9.95.0001(5). The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is authorized to release a defendant on parole "after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work.”
In Re Det. of Kelley, 135 P.3d 554 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[12] RCW 9.95.0001(5). [13] RCW 71.09.020(15).”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Peter Daniel Ansell (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “702(10)(c)(i-iii); RCW 9.95.0001(2)). 15 Resp’t’s Br. at 11.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Sean Anthony Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, the ISRB did not abuse its discretion by imposing this monitoring condition. A “crime-related prohibition” includes “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance” with validly imposed conditions.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.0001(2) — 4 cases
In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 474 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2020). “RCW 9.95.0001(2) (emphasis added).5 “Crime-related prohibition” is defined as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). “(emphasis omitted) (quoting RCW 9.95.0001(2)). Looking at this language, the ISRB can impose both crime-related and affirmative conditions.”
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 9.95.0001(2). Under an indeterminate sentence, any violation of community custody conditions subjects the offender to arrest, detention, and further sanctions, including possible revocation of community custody and return to jail.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Peter Daniel Ansell (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “702(10)(c)(i-iii); RCW 9.95.0001(2)). 15 Resp’t’s Br. at 11.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.0001(3) — 3 cases
In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 474 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2020). “RCW 9.95.0001(2) (emphasis added).5 “Crime-related prohibition” is defined as “an order of a court prohibiting conduct that directly relates to the circumstances of the crime for which the offender has been convicted.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Peter Daniel Ansell (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “702(10)(c)(i-iii); RCW 9.95.0001(2)). 15 Resp’t’s Br. at 11.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Sean Anthony Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Accordingly, the ISRB did not abuse its discretion by imposing this monitoring condition. A “crime-related prohibition” includes “affirmative acts necessary to monitor compliance” with validly imposed conditions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.0001(5) — 8 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of Lain, 315 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2013). “First, he argues that because “parole” is defined as the “portion of a person’s sentence ... served on conditional release in the community” and because Lain was not yet on conditional release in the community, there was no “parole” for the governor to cancel.”
In Re Pullman, 218 P.3d 913 (Wash. 2009). “94A RCW, replaced parole "good time credits" with the current "earned release time" system.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Pullman, 167 Wash. 2d 205 (Wash. 2009). “137, § 1; RCW 9.95.0001(5). That system of indeterminate sentencing was replaced with a structured determinate sentencing system designed to ensure proportional punishment.”
State v. Kelley, 133 Wash. App. 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 9.95.0001(5). RCW 71.09.020(15). In re Det.”
In re the Det. of Hovinga, 132 Wash. App. 16 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “” RCW 9.95.0001(5). The Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is authorized to release a defendant on parole “after such convicted person has served the period of confinement fixed for him or her by the board, less time credits for good behavior and diligence in work.”
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.