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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.122 (2026)

On-site revocation hearing—Representation for alleged violators—Compensation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) At any on-site parole revocation hearing for a person convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 1984, the alleged parole violator shall be entitled to be represented by an attorney of his or her own choosing and at his or her own expense, except, upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence of indigency and the request for the appointment of an attorney by the alleged parole violator, the board may cause the appointment of an attorney to represent the alleged parole violator to be paid for at state expense, and, in addition, the board may assume all or such other expenses in the presentation of evidence on behalf of the alleged parole violator as it may have authorized: PROVIDED, That funds are available for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. Attorneys for the representation of alleged parole violators in on-site hearings shall be appointed by the superior courts for the counties wherein the on-site parole revocation hearing is to be held and such attorneys shall be compensated in such manner and in such amount as shall be fixed in a schedule of fees adopted by rule of the board.
(2) The rights of offenders sentenced under RCW 9.94A.507 are defined in RCW 9.95.435.
[ 2009 c 28 s 28; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 335; 1999 c 143 s 23; 1969 c 98 s 4.]

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.
Severability—Effective date—1969 c 98: See notes following RCW 9.95.120.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1974–2000 · 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 6× “In a parole revocation hearing RCW 9.95.122 permits an alleged parole violator "to be represented by an attorney of his own choosing and at his own expense".”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Haverty, 618 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “The parolee may be represented by counsel, RCW 9.95.122, and may call witnesses. RCW 9.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of McNeal, 994 P.2d 890 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 9.95.122 provides the right to representation of counsel at the parolee's expense at parole revocation hearings and provides that upon request and proof of indigency counsel may be appointed.”
Pierce v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 646 P.2d 1382 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 9.95.122. Parole may be revoked only if the Board is satisfied that the alleged violation of parole has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence and that the violation constitutes sufficient cause for revocation.”
Dillenburg v. Morris, 525 P.2d 770 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 3× “120, that funds were not available for appointment of counsel; (3) that prior to the hearing the defendant requested of the presiding board member that he be appointed counsel; (4) that the defendant was advised by the board that it did not have the power under RCW 9.95.122 to…”
Butenhoff v. Oberquell, 603 P.2d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.122; 3 cf. State v. Hartwig, 36 Wn.”
Pierce v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 646 P.2d 1382 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 9.95.122. Parole may be revoked only if the Board is satisfied that the alleged violation of parole has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence and that the violation constitutes sufficient cause for revocation.”
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.