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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420 (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)(a) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, before the expiration of the minimum term, as part of the end of sentence review process under RCW 72.09.340, 72.09.345, and where appropriate, 72.09.370, the department shall conduct, and the offender shall participate in, an examination of the offender, incorporating methodologies that are recognized by experts in the prediction of sexual dangerousness, and including a prediction of the probability that the offender will engage in sex offenses if released.
(b) The board may contract for an additional, independent examination, subject to the standards in this section.
(c) If at the time the sentence is imposed by the superior court the offender's minimum term has expired or will expire within 120 days of the sentencing hearing, the department shall conduct, within 90 days of the offender's arrival at a department of corrections facility, and the offender shall participate in, an examination of the offender, incorporating methodologies that are recognized by experts in the prediction of sexual dangerousness, and including a prediction of the probability that the offender will engage in sex offenses if released.
(2) The board shall impose the conditions and instructions provided for in RCW 9.94A.704. The board shall consider the department's recommendations and may impose conditions in addition to those recommended by the department. The board may impose or modify conditions of community custody following notice to the offender. The additional conditions may be based upon the crime of conviction, risk of reoffense, or risk to community safety. The additional conditions of community custody need not be crime-related if the conditions reasonably relate to either the risk of reoffense or risk to community safety.
(3)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, no later than ninety days before expiration of the minimum term, but after the board receives the results from the end of sentence review process and the recommendations for additional or modified conditions of community custody from the department, the board shall conduct a hearing to determine whether it is more likely than not that the offender will engage in sex offenses if released on conditions to be set by the board. The board may consider an offender's failure to participate in an evaluation under subsection (1) of this section in determining whether to release the offender. The board shall order the offender released, under such affirmative and other conditions as the board determines appropriate, unless the board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that, despite such conditions, it is more likely than not that the offender will commit sex offenses if released. If the board does not order the offender released, the board shall establish a new minimum term as provided in RCW 9.95.011.
(b) If at the time the offender's minimum term has expired or will expire within 120 days of the offender's arrival at a department of correction's facility, then no later than 120 days after the offender's arrival at a department of corrections facility, but after the board receives the results from the end of sentence review process and the recommendations for additional or modified conditions of community custody from the department, the board shall conduct a hearing to determine whether it is more likely than not that the offender will engage in sex offenses if released on conditions to be set by the board. The board may consider an offender's failure to participate in an evaluation under subsection (1) of this section in determining whether to release the offender. The board shall order the offender released, under such affirmative and other conditions as the board determines appropriate, unless the board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that, despite such conditions, it is more likely than not that the offender will commit sex offenses if released. If the board does not order the offender released, the board shall establish a new minimum term as provided in RCW 9.95.011.
(4) In a hearing conducted under subsection (3) of this section, the board shall provide opportunities for the victims of any crimes for which the offender has been convicted to present statements as set forth in RCW 7.69.032. The procedures for victim input shall be developed by rule. To facilitate victim involvement, county prosecutor's offices shall ensure that any victim impact statements and known contact information for victims of record are forwarded as part of the judgment and sentence.
[ 2024 c 118 s 5; 2009 c 138 s 3; (2009 c 138 s 2 expired August 1, 2009); 2008 c 231 s 44; 2007 c 363 s 2; 2006 c 313 s 2; 2002 c 174 s 1; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 306.]

Notes:

Application—Effective date—2024 c 118: See notes following RCW 9.94A.704.
Effective date—2009 c 138 s 3: "Section 3 of this act takes effect August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 138 s 7.]
Expiration date—2009 c 138 s 2: "Section 2 of this act expires August 1, 2009." [ 2009 c 138 s 6.]
Intent—Application—Application of repealers—Effective date—2008 c 231: See notes following RCW 9.94A.701.
Severability—2008 c 231: See note following RCW 9.94A.500.
Effective date—2002 c 174: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 27, 2002]." [ 2002 c 174 s 3.]
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 49 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 17× “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 17× “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
Dallin Fort v. State of Washington, 41 F.4th 1141 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “The panel held that under the facts of this case and in the context of the proceedings as a whole, the Review Board’s setting of hearings pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420 was “part and parcel of the decision process,” thereby warranting quasi-judicial immunity.”
State v. Monroe, 126 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
State v. Monroe, 109 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
State v. Clarke, 134 P.3d 188 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “It is true that the end of sentence review provided for by RCW 9.95.420 differs from Washington’s former indeterminate sentencing system, where the presumption was that the offender would remain in custody unless the ISRB determined that he had been rehabilitated.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.420(1)(a). The ISRB will order the person released if it determines, based on the department’s recommendations and the ISRB hearing, that they are unlikely to engage in sex offenses if released under certain conditions.”
State v. Clarke, 103 P.3d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “" [28] RCW 9.95.420. [29] RCW 9.95.420. [30] In re Addleman, 151 Wash.”
State v. Clarke, 124 Wash. App. 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “” RCW 9.95.420. RCW 9.95.420. Addleman, 151 Wn.”
State v. Borboa, 102 P.3d 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The only way a defendant can avoid an actual life sentence for this class of offenses is by having the Board find him unlikely to reoffend if released from prison into the community under supervision.”
State v. Brundage, 107 P.3d 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 9.95.420(3)(a). The offender shall be released, subject to the Board’s conditions, “unless the board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that, despite such conditions, it is more likely than not that the offender will commit sex offenses if released.”
State v. Borboa, 124 Wash. App. 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.420. Even then, if he reoffends or fails to follow the conditions of his release, the Board can return him to prison to reinstate his life sentence or to continue serving it in two-year increments.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(1) — 2 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(1)(a) — 10 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). “RCW 9.95.420(1)(a). The ISRB will order the person released if it determines, based on the department’s recommendations and the ISRB hearing, that they are unlikely to engage in sex offenses if released under certain conditions.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Greg Martinez, 413 P.3d 1043 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Robert Jackson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(2) — 8 cases
In re Pers. Restraint of Winton, 474 P.3d 532 (Wash. 2020).
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Greg Martinez, 413 P.3d 1043 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Washington v. Mechel N. Frederick (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(3) — 14 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
State v. Monroe, 126 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
State v. Monroe, 109 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). “RCW 9.95.420(1)(a). The ISRB will order the person released if it determines, based on the department’s recommendations and the ISRB hearing, that they are unlikely to engage in sex offenses if released under certain conditions.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(3)(a) — 35 cases
In re the Pers. Restraint of McCarthy, 161 Wash. 2d 234 (Wash. 2007). “*245 ¶19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
State v. Brundage, 107 P.3d 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 9.95.420(3)(a). The offender shall be released, subject to the Board’s conditions, “unless the board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that, despite such conditions, it is more likely than not that the offender will commit sex offenses if released.”
State v. Clarke, 134 P.3d 188 (Wash. 2006). “It is true that the end of sentence review provided for by RCW 9.95.420 differs from Washington’s former indeterminate sentencing system, where the presumption was that the offender would remain in custody unless the ISRB determined that he had been rehabilitated.”
State v. Monroe, 126 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
State v. Monroe, 109 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “712(3)) or the ISRB (RCW 9.95.420), unfettered discretion to impose a minimum term of life that Stanphill does not control the decision here.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(3)(b) — 1 case
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Greg Martinez, 413 P.3d 1043 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420(a) — 1 case
In Re Mccarthy, 164 P.3d 1283 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 19 The unique statutory language and structure of RCW 9.95.420 give offenders only a limited liberty interest in .”
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.