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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.240 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of his or her probation for the entire period thereof, or who shall have been discharged from probation prior to the termination of the period thereof, may at any time prior to the expiration of the maximum period of punishment for the offense for which he or she has been convicted be permitted in the discretion of the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty, or if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court may in its discretion set aside the verdict of guilty; and in either case, the court may thereupon dismiss the information or indictment against such defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he or she has been convicted. The probationer shall be informed of this right in his or her probation papers: PROVIDED, That in any subsequent prosecution, for any other offense, such prior conviction may be pleaded and proved, and shall have the same effect as if probation had not been granted, or the information or indictment dismissed.
(2)(a) After the period of probation has expired, the defendant may apply to the sentencing court for a vacation of the defendant's record of conviction under RCW 9.94A.640. The court may, in its discretion, clear the record of conviction if it finds the defendant has met the equivalent of the tests in RCW 9.94A.640(2) as those tests would be applied to a person convicted of a crime committed before July 1, 1984.
(b) The clerk of the court in which the vacation order is entered shall immediately transmit the order vacating the conviction to the Washington state patrol identification section and to the local police agency, if any, which holds criminal history information for the person who is the subject of the conviction. The Washington state patrol and any such local police agency shall immediately update their records to reflect the vacation of the conviction, and shall transmit the order vacating the conviction to the federal bureau of investigation. A conviction that has been vacated under this section may not be disseminated or disclosed by the state patrol or local law enforcement agency to any person, except other criminal justice enforcement agencies.
(3) This section does not apply to chapter 18.130 RCW.
[ 2008 c 134 s 27; 2003 c 66 s 1; 1957 c 227 s 7. Prior: 1939 c 125 s 1, part; RRS s 10249-5e.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—Severability—2008 c 134: See notes following RCW 18.130.020.
Severability—1939 c 125: See note following RCW 9.95.200.
Gambling commission—Denial, suspension, or revocation of license, permit—Other provisions not applicable: RCW 9.46.075.
Juvenile courts, probation officers: RCW 13.04.040, 13.04.050.
State lottery commission—Denial, suspension, and revocation of licenses—Other provisions not applicable: RCW 67.70.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: In Re the Pers. Restraint of Carrier, 272 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Carrier, 272 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 218× “In light of the dismissal order, we hold that Carrier's life sentence is invalid because a court may not include a dismissed conviction under former RCW 9.95.240 (1957) in a defendant's criminal history as a POAA strike offense.”
State v. Breazeale, 31 P.3d 1155 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 20× “We affirm in part and hold that RCW 9.95.240 and RCW 10.97.060 provide statutory authority to vacate Respondents' conviction records.”
State v. Breazeale, 144 Wash. 2d 829 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 19× “We affirm in part and hold that RCW 9.95.240 and RCW 10.97.060 provide statutory authority to vacate Respondents’ conviction records.”
State v. Haggard, 461 P.3d 1159 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 15× “Former RCW 9.95.240 (1957) allowed a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea and enter a not guilty plea, and the court could then dismiss the information or indictment, releasing a defendant from “all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he [or…”
State v. Hall, 666 P.2d 930 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 12× “The order of dismissal pursuant to RCW 9.95.240 was signed by the court and filed in the afternoon of August 3, 1982.”
Matsen v. Kaiser, 443 P.2d 843 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 17× “200) and to defer the imposition or suspend the execution of sentence (RCW 9.95.240), even though empowering the court to subsequently vacate the plea of guilty, dismiss the information and affirmatively relieve the accused of all disabilities and penalties, do not erase the…”
State v. Nelson, 601 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 16× “The Court of Appeals held the trial court retains authority to revoke a deferred sentence until such time as an order of dismissal is entered pursuant to RCW 9.95.240. That statute states in pertinent part: Every defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of his probation for…”
State v. Breazeale, 994 P.2d 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 15× “Trial judges are authorized to expunge criminal records for pre-SRA convictions under RCW 9.95.240, and for post-SRA convictions under RCW 9.”
Nakatani v. State, 109 Wash. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “The trial court then set aside the finding of guilt and dismissed the information against him pursuant to RCW 9.95.240. In November 2000, Nakatani filed a petition in Superior Court for “an RCW 9.”
Blevins v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 584 P.2d 992 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 10× “During trial, the jury heard cross-examination of Blevins concerning his guilty plea to a 1973 charge of grand larceny arising from fraudulent receipt of welfare funds. He had received a deferred sentence and, upon successful completion of probation conditions, was allowed to…”
State v. Smith, 246 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “640, and RCW 9.95.240. 6 As stated previously, RCW 9.”
State v. Moore, 876 P.2d 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “The report also indicated that, following successful completion of probation, Moore was allowed, pursuant to RCW 9.95.240, to change his plea to not guilty and the charge of indecent liberties was dismissed.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.240(1) — 3 cases
State v. Smith, 246 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “640, and RCW 9.95.240. 6 As stated previously, RCW 9.”
State Of Washington, Resp. v. Michael Costa, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Smith, 246 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.240(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Abrams (Wash. 2026).
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.