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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.080 (2026)

Revocation and redetermination of minimum for infractions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In case any person convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 1984, and under the jurisdiction of the indeterminate sentence review board undergoing sentence in a state correctional institution commits any infractions of the rules and regulations of the institution, the board may revoke any order theretofore made determining the length of time such convicted person shall be imprisoned, including the forfeiture of all or a portion of credits earned or to be earned, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 9.95.110, and make a new order determining the length of time the person shall serve, not exceeding the maximum penalty provided by law for the crime for which the person was convicted, or the maximum fixed by the court. Such revocation and redetermination shall not be had except upon a hearing before the indeterminate sentence review board. At such hearing the convicted person shall be present and entitled to be heard and may present evidence and witnesses in his or her behalf.
[ 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 328; 1992 c 7 s 26; 1972 ex.s. c 68 s 1; 1961 c 106 s 1; 1955 c 133 s 9. Prior: 1947 c 92 s 1, part; 1935 c 114 s 2, part; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 10249-2, part.]

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, 1975–2009 · leading case: Arment v. Henry, 658 P.2d 663 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arment v. Henry, 658 P.2d 663 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 36× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles is constitutionally required to appoint counsel for an indigent inmate before increasing the inmate's minimum sentence at a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to RCW 9.95.080. Initially, we must…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Piercy, 681 P.2d 223 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 11× “The Court of Appeals, Division Three, certified the following question, raised in these consolidated personal restraint petitions, to this court: Where a prison inmate has been afforded procedural due process for disciplinary violations, must he be afforded the opportunity to…”
State v. Haner, 631 P.2d 381 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “RCW 9.95.080; 9.95.110. Majority opinion, at 865 n.”
Monohan v. Burdman, 530 P.2d 334 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 4× “Initially, we note that in this state minimal due process hearings are provided for under RCW 9.95.080 2 in situations where a prison inmate is accused of violating disciplinary rules within the prison facility.”
In Re Pullman, 218 P.3d 913 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.080. Monohan, 84 Wash.2d at 926 n.”
Addleman v. Bd. of Prison Terms & Paroles, 730 P.2d 1327 (Wash. 1986). “110); and resolving disciplinary matters (RCW 9.95.080). Even if the statute is not a model of clarity, other rules of statutory construction mandate application of SRA standards to those sentenced prior to July 1, 1984.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Ayers, 713 P.2d 88 (Wash. 1986). “070 permits time credit reductions for good behavior; and (d) RCW 9.95.080 allows redetermination of the minimum for infractions.”
Dawson v. Hearing Comm., 597 P.2d 1353 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 9.95.080. See also, Laws of 1955, ch.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Pullman, 167 Wash. 2d 205 (Wash. 2009). “2 (RCW 9.95.080 then provided, “ ‘[R] evocation and redetermination shall not be had except upon a hearing before the board of prison terms and paroles.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Cashaw, 839 P.2d 332 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “RCW 9.95.080. Before this can occur, there must be a hearing before the Board, in the presence of the inmate, who shall be entitled to be heard and who may present evidence and witnesses on his behalf.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Little, 627 P.2d 543 (Wash. 1981). “Upon his reincarceration, a disciplinary proceeding was convened pursuant to RCW 9.95.080. At that hearing, the parole board extended the expiration date of his maximum sentence by the period of time he was a fugitive.”
In the Matter of Pers. Restraint of Pepperling, 827 P.2d 347 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “040, and revoke and redetermine those terms, RCW 9.95.080, for pre-SRA offenders in the custody of DOC.”
Show all 13 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.