Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.95

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.070

Reductions for good behavior

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every prisoner, convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 1984, who has a favorable record of conduct at a state correctional institution, and who performs in a faithful, diligent, industrious, orderly and peaceable manner the work, duties, and tasks assigned to him or her to the satisfaction of the superintendent of the institution, and in whose behalf the superintendent of the institution files a report certifying that his or her conduct and work have been meritorious and recommending allowance of time credits to him or her, shall upon, but not until, the adoption of such recommendation by the indeterminate sentence review board, be allowed time credit reductions from the term of imprisonment fixed by the board.
(2) Offenders sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507 for a crime committed on or after September 1, 2001, are subject to the earned release provisions for sex offenders established in RCW 9.94A.728.
[ 2009 c 28 s 24; 2003 c 218 s 4; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 327; 1999 c 143 s 19; 1955 c 133 s 8. Prior: 1947 c 92 s 1, part; 1935 c 114 s 2, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 10249-2, part.]

Notes:

Effective date—2009 c 28: See note following RCW 2.24.040.
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 25 cases, 1960–2009 · leading case: State v. Fain
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fain (1980) wash · cites it 4× “110; RCW 9.95.070. Under Washington's present statutory scheme, the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles cannot establish a habitual offender's minimum sentence at less than 15 years and may fix it at life.”
In Re the Personal Restraint of Piercy (1984) wash · cites it 9× “080, with its explicit requirement of an in-person hearing before the Board, applies to a decision to deny good time credits. The State, on the other hand, argues that RCW 9.”
Matter of Personal Restraint of Cashaw (1994) wash · cites it 3× “RCW 9.95.070, .110. The good-time credits apply only to the Board’s minimum sentence, not to the court’s maximum sentence.”
State v. Grisby (1982) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.070, .110, .115. Not only is the definition not erroneous, but the trial court also carefully instructed the jury so as to insure no undue emphasis would be placed on any instruction.”
In Re the Personal Restraint of Johnston (1987) wash · cites it 4× “(k) Recommendation to the superintendent that he/she not certify good conduct time credit for an inmate to the board of prison terms and paroles, pursuant to RCW 9.95.070 or that he/she deny good conduct time credit for those inmates not under jurisdiction of the board.”
Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles (1986) wash · 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.”
Arment v. Henry (1983) wash · cites it 4× “080 with the powers conferred upon it under RCW 9.95.070, the type of statute under consideration in Wolff .”
In Re Pullman (2009) wash · cites it 3× “That system of indeterminate sentencing was replaced with a structured determinate sentencing system designed to ensure proportional punishment.”
In re the Personal Restraint of Pullman (2009) wash · cites it 3× “That system of indeterminate sentencing was replaced with a structured determinate sentencing system designed to ensure proportional punishment.”
In Re the Personal Restraint of Borders (1990) wash · cites it 2× “11 (1985); RCW 9.95.070. Under the indeterminate system, good time credits could be awarded to reduce the minimum terms of both jail and prison terms, RCW 9.”
State v. Hutsell (1993) wash “Hut-sell nevertheless argues his exceptional 12-month sentence is justified because it approximates a standard range (14- to 18-month) sentence, considering potential time credit reductions for good behavior under RCW 9.”
In Re Addleman (2004) wash “of Jody Swails); see also RCW 9.95.070, .110. We grant all motions before the court to expand the record and deny Addleman's motion for a reference hearing to contextualize the expanded record.”
Show all 25 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.