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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.052 (2026)

Redetermination and refixing of minimum term of confinement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At any time after the board (or the court after July 1, 1986) has determined the minimum term of confinement of any person subject to confinement in a state correctional institution for a crime committed before July 1, 1984, the board may request the superintendent of such correctional institution to conduct a full review of such person's prospects for rehabilitation and report to the board the facts of such review and the resulting findings. Upon the basis of such report and such other information and investigation that the board deems appropriate, the board may redetermine and refix such convicted person's minimum term of confinement whether the term was set by the board or the court.
The board shall not reduce a person's minimum term of confinement unless the board has received from the department of corrections all institutional conduct reports relating to the person.
[ 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 324; 1986 c 224 s 10; 1983 c 196 s 1; 1972 ex.s. c 67 s 1.]

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.
Effective date—Severability—1986 c 224: See notes following RCW 9.95.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: State v. Fain, 617 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fain, 617 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.052. Moreover, our statutes make it plain that one in Fain's position feels the consequences of his sentence even if he is so fortunate as to receive parole.”
Addleman v. Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 730 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 2× “Under the 1935 parole *506 board act, the Board is authorized among other things to waive certain mandatory minimum terms by a two-thirds vote, RCW 9.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Stanphill, 134 Wash. 2d 165 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.052. Therefore, the mini *172 mum term carries with it no guaranty of release—it only establishes a date when the inmate becomes eligible for parole.”
Matter of Stanphill, 949 P.2d 365 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “The Board cannot release an inmate, regardless of the status of the minimum term, until either the Board determines the inmate has been rehabilitated (and is otherwise fit for release) or the maximum sentence—in this case, life—has been served. RCW 9.95.100. If, after the…”
Matter of Pers. Restraint of Cashaw, 866 P.2d 8 (Wash. 1994). “The Board cannot release an inmate, regardless of the status of the minimum term, until either the Board determines the inmate has been rehabilitated (and is otherwise fit for release) or the maximum sentence has been served.”
Monohan v. Burdman, 530 P.2d 334 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 2× “The respondent, however, points to RCW 9.95.052 3 and *927 asserts that the procedure there outlined was the procedure followed in the instant case and that no minimal due process safeguards are therein provided.”
In Re Addleman, 991 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “See RCW 9.95.052; see also Supplemental Br. of ISRB at 7 and app.”
State v. King, 925 P.2d 606 (Wash. 1996). “…term at its discretion, for a variety of reasons, any time prior to an inmate’s completion of his maximum term. RCW 9.95.052.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Ayers, 713 P.2d 88 (Wash. 1986). “040 the Board fixes the minimum term *163 with certain statutory mínimums not applicable here; (b) RCW 9.95.052 authorizes a redetermination of the minimum term; (c) RCW 9.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Sinka, 599 P.2d 1275 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 9.95.052; .080. Upon completion of an inmate's minimum term (less time for good behavior), the Board may parole the inmate.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Lain, 315 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2013). “2d 606 (1996) (citing RCW 9.95.052). We review the Board’s decisions to “ensure [that it] exercises its discretion in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules.”
In Re Ecklund, 985 P.2d 342 (Wash. 1999). “2d 606 ; see also RCW 9.95.052 (stating that "[a]t any time after the board .”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.