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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.030 (2026)

Statement to indeterminate sentence review board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At the time the convicted person is transported to the custody of the department of corrections, the indeterminate sentence review board shall obtain from the sentencing judge and the prosecuting attorney, a statement of all the facts concerning the convicted person's crime and any other information of which they may be possessed relative to him or her, and the sentencing judge and the prosecuting attorney shall furnish the board with such information. The sentencing judge and prosecuting attorney shall indicate to the board, for its guidance, what, in their judgment, should be the duration of the convicted person's imprisonment.
[ 2011 c 336 s 338; 1999 c 143 s 17; 1984 c 114 s 2; 1955 c 133 s 4. Prior: 1947 c 92 s 1, part; 1935 c 114 s 2, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 10249-2, part.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1957–1986 · leading case: Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.030 . We were informed during oral argument that the Board places considerable weight on these recommendations, although it is in no way bound by them.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Sinka, 599 P.2d 1275 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “" RCW 9.95.030. In addition, the prosecutor provides the Parole Board with a statement about the convicted person's earlier career, character and capability of again becoming a good citizen; a copy of the statement is provided to the inmate.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Ayers, 713 P.2d 88 (Wash. 1986). “Again that issue is different from the proceedings under RCW 9.95.100 where the Board is evaluating parolability under the very generalized standard authorized by the Legislature.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Shriner, 627 P.2d 99 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 3× “" RCW 9.95.030. Within 6 months after the admission of the convicted person to the penitentiary or reformatory, the Board fixes the minimum term of that person.”
State v. Wills, 416 P.2d 124 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “However, this fact or factor can be accorded attention in a "statement of the prosecuting attorney," as provided in RCW 9.95.030, and can be evaluated subject to the discretion of the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles in fixing minimum sentence.”
State v. Williams, 316 P.2d 913 (Wash. 1957). “See RCW 9.95.030. These statements could be considered by the court for that purpose and also for the purpose of deciding whether to suspend sentence, but not *185 for the purpose of deciding upon the maximum to be imposed, since, under RCW 9.”
State v. Derefield, 491 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 3× “Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.030 . We were informed during oral argument that the Board places considerable weight on these recommendations, although it is in no way bound by them.”
State ex rel. Alldis v. Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 353 P.2d 412 (Wash. 1960). “RCW 9.95.030 requires that the sentencing judge and prosecuting attorney furnish the board of prison terms and paroles with a statement of all the facts concerning the convicted person’s crime and any other facts relative to him.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Acosta, 680 P.2d 423 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “In fixing a discretionary minimum, unlike the mandatory minimum, prior convictions are not dispositive of the duration of confinement; they are only one of many factors that the parole board may take into consideration, see RCW 9.95.030, .170. Due process is satisfied in this…”
State Ex Rel. Alldis v. Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 353 P.2d 412 (Wash. 1960). “RCW 9.95.030 requires that the sentencing judge and prosecuting attorney furnish the board of prison terms and paroles with a statement of all the facts concerning the convicted person's crime and any other facts relative to him.”
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.