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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.011 (2026)

Minimum terms

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When the court commits a convicted person to the department of corrections on or after July 1, 1986, for an offense committed before July 1, 1984, the court shall, at the time of sentencing or revocation of probation, fix the minimum term. The term so fixed shall not exceed the maximum sentence provided by law for the offense of which the person is convicted.
The court shall attempt to set the minimum term reasonably consistent with the purposes, standards, and sentencing ranges under chapter 9.94A RCW of the sentencing reform act, but the court is subject to the same limitations as those placed on the board under RCW 9.92.090, 9.95.040 (1) through (4), 9.95.115, 9A.32.040, 9A.44.045, and chapter 69.50 RCW. The court's minimum term decision is subject to review to the same extent as a minimum term decision by the parole board before July 1, 1986.
Thereafter, the expiration of the minimum term set by the court minus any time credits earned under RCW 9.95.070 and 9.95.110 constitutes the parole eligibility review date, at which time the board may consider the convicted person for parole under RCW 9.95.100 and 9.95.110 and chapter 72.04A RCW. Nothing in this section affects the board's authority to reduce or increase the minimum term, once set by the court, under RCW 9.95.040, 9.95.052, 9.95.055, 9.95.070, 9.95.080, 9.95.100, 9.95.115, 9.95.125, or 9.95.047.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, not less than ninety days prior to the expiration of the minimum term of a person sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507, for a sex offense committed on or after September 1, 2001, less any time credits permitted by statute, the board shall review the person for conditional release to community custody as provided in RCW 9.95.420. If the board does not release the person, it shall set a new minimum term not to exceed an additional five years. The board shall review the person again not less than ninety days prior to the expiration of the new minimum term.
(b) If at the time a person sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507 for a sex offense committed on or after September 1, 2001, arrives at a department of corrections facility, the offender's minimum term has expired or will expire within one hundred twenty days of the offender's arrival, then no later than one hundred twenty days after the offender's arrival at a department of corrections facility, but after the board receives the results from the end of sentence review process and the recommendations for additional or modified conditions of community custody from the department, the board shall review the person for conditional release to community custody as provided in RCW 9.95.420. If the board does not release the person, it shall set a new minimum term not to exceed an additional five years. The board shall review the person again not less than ninety days prior to the expiration of the new minimum term.
(c) In setting a new minimum term, the board may consider the length of time necessary for the offender to complete treatment and programming as well as other factors that relate to the offender's release under RCW 9.95.420. The board's rules shall permit an offender to petition for an earlier review if circumstances change or the board receives new information that would warrant an earlier review.
[ 2011 1st sp.s. c 40 s 40; 2009 c 28 s 21; 2007 c 363 s 1; 2002 c 174 s 2; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 320; 1993 c 144 s 3; 1986 c 224 s 7.]

Notes:

Application—Recalculation of community custody terms—2011 1st sp.s. c 40: See note following RCW 9.94A.501.
Effective date—2009 c 28: See note following RCW 2.24.040.
Effective date—2002 c 174: See note following RCW 9.95.420.
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.
Effective date—1993 c 144: See note following RCW 9.95.045.
Effective date—Severability—1986 c 224: See notes following RCW 9.95.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: State v. Curtiss, 250 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Curtiss, 250 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “¶ 26 The State moved for resentencing to impose a minimum sentence under former RCW 9.95.011 (2007). After receiving permission from this court, as RAP 7.”
State v. Curtiss, 161 Wash. App. 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “¶26 The State moved for resentencing to impose a minimum sentence under former RCW 9.95.011 (2007). After receiving permission from this court, as RAP 7.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Whitesel, 763 P.2d 199 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 3× “Petitioners further claim that the transition statute violates their equal protection rights because under it they are treated differently from yet a third set of pre-SRA offenders — those who, pursuant to RCW 9.95.011, have had their minimum terms set by a superior court judge…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yates, 321 P.3d 1195 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “¶12 Specifically, Yates faults the trial court for imposing 20-year determinate sentences for counts one and two. Those murders were committed on July 13, 1975 — prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of George, 758 P.2d 13 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.95.011; 3 see also Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms & Paroles, 107 Wn.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Rolston, 732 P.2d 166 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.011. However, the court's minimum term decision is subject to review to the same extent as a minimum term decision by the parole board before July 1, 1986.”
State v. Saas, 820 P.2d 505 (Wash. 1991). “, RCW 9.95.011 (the trial court's decision in setting a defendant's pre-SRA minimum term shall be reasonably consistent with the SRA's purposes, standards and sentencing ranges).”
State v. Whitaker, 771 P.2d 332 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.011, the minimum term provision, provides: When the court commits a convicted person to the department of corrections on or after July 1, 1986, for an offense committed before July 1, 1984, the court shall, at the time of sentencing or revocation of probation, fix the…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Lain, 315 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 9.95.011, .040, .052; see also WAC 381-40-100; In re Pers.”
State v. Shephard, 766 P.2d 467 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “The first question is whether the court's reasons justify the sentence. This question requires us to consider the law applicable to post-SRA sentencings on pre-SRA convictions.”
State v. Landon, 848 P.2d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 7 of that session law enacted RCW 9.95.011: When the court commits a convicted person to the department of corrections on or after July 1, 1986, for an offense committed before July 1, 1984, the court shall, at the time of sentencing or revocation of probation, fix the…”
State v. Johnson, 759 P.2d 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “For those defendants, RCW 9.95.011, which incorporates the SRA, requires that the court attempt to set the minimum term "reasonably consistent with the purposes, standards, and sentencing ranges adopted under RCW 9.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.011(1) — 12 cases
State v. Curtiss, 250 P.3d 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 26 The State moved for resentencing to impose a minimum sentence under former RCW 9.95.011 (2007). After receiving permission from this court, as RAP 7.”
State v. Curtiss, 161 Wash. App. 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶26 The State moved for resentencing to impose a minimum sentence under former RCW 9.95.011 (2007). After receiving permission from this court, as RAP 7.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Yates, 321 P.3d 1195 (Wash. 2014). “¶12 Specifically, Yates faults the trial court for imposing 20-year determinate sentences for counts one and two. Those murders were committed on July 13, 1975 — prior to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981.”
State v. Robinson, 175 P.3d 1136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Robinson, 142 Wash. App. 649 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.011(2)(a) — 3 cases
Pers. Restraint Petition of William Eugene Keisling (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Donald R. Betts (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: Alfredo Carreno-maldonado (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.