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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.230 (2026)

Court revocation or termination of probation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court shall have authority at any time prior to the entry of an order terminating probation to (1) revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence; (2) it may at any time, when the ends of justice will be subserved thereby, and when the reformation of the probationer shall warrant it, terminate the period of probation, and discharge the person so held.
[ 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 s 11; 1957 c 227 s 6. Prior: 1939 c 125 s 1, part; RRS s 10249-5d.]

Notes:

Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 47: See note following RCW 9.41.190.
Severability—1939 c 125: See note following RCW 9.95.200.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases, 1954–2019 · leading case: State v. Nelson, 601 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nelson, 601 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 19× “The authority of the court during the probationary period is defined in RCW 9.95.230. The court shall have authority at any time during the course of probation to (1) revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence; (2) it may at any…”
State v. Hultman, 600 P.2d 1291 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 6× “RCW 9.95.230 grants the court authority to revoke its order of suspension.”
Couch v. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.95.230; RCW 9.92.064. DOC argues that Davis’ misdemeanor probation terminated by operation of law on December 21,1994.”
State v. Alberts, 754 P.2d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “" Discussion At issue in this case is the trial court's jurisdiction to modify probation under present RCW 9.95.230, which provides: The court shall have authority at any time prior to the entry of an order terminating probation to (1) revoke, modify, or change its order of…”
State v. Mortrud, 575 P.2d 227 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “2d 416 (1975), and RCW 9.95.230. He asserts the operative effect of these statutes is to terminate jurisdiction of the court at the end of the probationary period, i.”
Gillespie v. State, 563 P.2d 1272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 3× “) RCW 9.95.230. Also bearing on this issue is RCW 9.”
Couch v. Wa. Dep't of Corr., 54 P.3d 197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “2d 1015 (1988) (under SRA, court cannot condition community placement on repeat offender not "violat[ing] any local, state or federal criminal statute, law or ordinance"); DAVID BOERNER, SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON at § 4, 4-5 to 4-6 (1985) (CCO's power "is restricted by the nature…”
State v. Hall, 645 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “Defendant also contends that the court in fact modified the sentence pursuant to RCW 9.95.230, 1 and could not properly do so past the period of probation.”
State v. May, 911 P.2d 399 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Pointing to the specific reference to adult probationers in RCW 13.”
People v. Gore, 774 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 3× “210[ 5 ] its execution is deferred, we hold [that Wash.Rev.Code 9.95.230 [ 6 ] operates to terminate the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant upon the expiration of the probationary period, and the *883 court shall have no authority to revoke, modify, or change its order…”
State v. Jorgenson, 737 P.2d 1277 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “According to RCW 9.95.230: The court shall have authority at any time prior to the entry of an order terminating probation to (1) revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence; .”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Myers, 579 P.2d 1006 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “210 its execution is deferred, we hold RCW 9.95.230 operates to terminate the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant upon the expiration of the probationary period, and the court shall have no authority to revoke, modify, or change its order of deferral of execution of the…”
Show all 51 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.