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

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.435 (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) If an offender released by the board under RCW 9.95.420, 10.95.030(2), or 9.94A.730 violates any condition or requirement of community custody, the board may transfer the offender to a more restrictive confinement status to serve up to the remaining portion of the sentence, less credit for any period actually spent in community custody or in detention awaiting disposition of an alleged violation and subject to the limitations of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Following the hearing specified in subsection (3) of this section, the board may impose sanctions such as work release, home detention with electronic monitoring, work crew, community restitution, inpatient treatment, daily reporting, curfew, educational or counseling sessions, supervision enhanced through electronic monitoring, or any other sanctions available in the community, or may suspend the release and sanction up to sixty days' confinement in a local correctional facility for each violation, or revoke the release to community custody whenever an offender released by the board under RCW 9.95.420, 10.95.030(2), or 9.94A.730 violates any condition or requirement of community custody.
(3) If an offender released by the board under RCW 9.95.420, 10.95.030(2), or 9.94A.730 is accused of violating any condition or requirement of community custody, he or she is entitled to a hearing before the board or a designee of the board prior to the imposition of sanctions. The hearing shall be considered as offender disciplinary proceedings and shall not be subject to chapter 34.05 RCW. The board shall develop hearing procedures and a structure of graduated sanctions consistent with the hearing procedures and graduated sanctions developed pursuant to RCW 9.94A.737. The board may suspend the offender's release to community custody and confine the offender in a correctional institution owned, operated by, or operated under contract with the state prior to the hearing unless the offender has been arrested and confined for a new criminal offense.
(4) The hearing procedures required under subsection (3) of this section shall be developed by rule and include the following:
(a) Hearings shall be conducted by members or designees of the board unless the board enters into an agreement with the department to use the hearing officers established under RCW 9.94A.737;
(b) The board shall provide the offender with findings and conclusions which include the evidence relied upon, and the reasons the particular sanction was imposed. The board shall notify the offender of the right to appeal the sanction and the right to file a personal restraint petition under court rules after the final decision of the board;
(c) The hearing shall be held unless waived by the offender, and shall be electronically recorded. For offenders not in total confinement, the hearing shall be held within 30 days of service of notice of the violation, but not less than 24 hours after notice of the violation. For offenders in total confinement, the hearing shall be held within 30 days of service of notice of the violation, but not less than 24 hours after notice of the violation. The board or its designee shall make a determination whether probable cause exists to believe the violation or violations occurred. The determination shall be made within 48 hours of receipt of the allegation;
(d) The offender shall have the right to: (i) Be present at the hearing; (ii) have the assistance of a person qualified to assist the offender in the hearing, appointed by the presiding hearing officer if the offender has a language or communications barrier; (iii) testify or remain silent; (iv) call witnesses and present documentary evidence; (v) question witnesses who appear and testify; and (vi) be represented by counsel if revocation of the release to community custody upon a finding of violation is a probable sanction for the violation. The board may not revoke the release to community custody of any offender who was not represented by counsel at the hearing, unless the offender has waived the right to counsel; and
(e) The sanction shall take effect if affirmed by the presiding hearing officer.
(5) Within seven days after the presiding hearing officer's decision, the offender may appeal the decision to the full board or to a panel of three reviewing examiners designated by the chair of the board or by the chair's designee. The sanction shall be reversed or modified if a majority of the panel finds that the sanction was not reasonably related to at least one of the following: (a) The crime of conviction; (b) the violation committed; (c) the offender's risk of reoffending; or (d) the safety of the community.
(6) For purposes of this section, no finding of a violation of conditions may be based on unconfirmed or unconfirmable allegations.
[ 2024 c 118 s 6; 2014 c 130 s 7; 2007 c 363 s 3; 2003 c 218 s 1; 2002 c 175 s 17; 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 309.]

Notes:

Application—Effective date—2024 c 118: See notes following RCW 9.94A.704.
Application—Effective date—2014 c 130: See notes following RCW 9.94A.510.
Effective date—2002 c 175: See note following RCW 7.80.130.
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 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “507(6)(b); RCW 9.95.435(1)-(2), .425(1). The ISRB may “transfer the offender to a more restrictive confinement status to serve up to the remaining portion of the sentence, less credit for any period actually spent in community custody .”
State v. Clarke, 134 P.3d 188 (Wash. 2006). “713(4); RCW 9.95.435. The manner in which this sentencing regime operates indicates that sentences imposed under RCW 9.”
State v. Monroe, 126 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.435. 9 If the defendant violates any of the conditions imposed, he may be reincarcerated.”
State v. Monroe, 109 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 9.95.435. [9] If the defendant violates any of the conditions imposed, he may be reincarcerated.”
State v. Borboa, 102 P.3d 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[8] RCW 9.95.435(1). [9] See RCW 9A.20.010-.020.”
State v. Borboa, 124 Wash. App. 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9.95.435(1). See RCW 9A.20.010-.020. See RCW 9.”
In re the Postsentence Review of Hudgens, 156 Wash. App. 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 9.95.435(1); RCW 9.94A-.507(6)(b). In contrast, the DOC argues, a determinate sentence, like here, usually results in a shorter supervision period under which the DOC has jurisdiction over the offender.”
In Re Hudgens, 233 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 9.95.435(1); RCW 9.94A.507(6)(b). In contrast, the DOC argues, a determinate sentence, like here, usually results in a shorter supervision period under which the DOC has jurisdiction over the offender.”
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of Eric Devin Cain (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “The court has since asked the parties to address whether a videoconference hearing violated Eric Cain’s rights under RCW 9.95.435. RCW 9.95.435(4)(d), a subsection of the statute that governs revocation of community custody, declares, in part: The offender shall have the right…”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Luis Andre Perez (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “Perez instead argues that despite the violations, he should not be held responsible because he was coerced and pressured into the violations by Porter.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Sean Anthony Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” RCW 9.95.435(1). Here, Thompson was found to have violated two valid conditions of community custody—the condition prohibiting use or possession of sexually explicit materials and the associated Internet monitoring condition.”
State v. Clarke, 134 P.3d 188 (Wash. 2006). “713(4); RCW 9.95.435. The manner in which this sentencing regime operates indicates that sentences imposed under RCW 9.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.435(1) — 7 cases
State v. Slattum, 295 P.3d 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “507(6)(b); RCW 9.95.435(1)-(2), .425(1). The ISRB may “transfer the offender to a more restrictive confinement status to serve up to the remaining portion of the sentence, less credit for any period actually spent in community custody .”
State v. Borboa, 102 P.3d 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[8] RCW 9.95.435(1). [9] See RCW 9A.20.010-.020.”
State v. Borboa, 124 Wash. App. 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 9.95.435(1). See RCW 9A.20.010-.020. See RCW 9.”
In re the Postsentence Review of Hudgens, 156 Wash. App. 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 9.95.435(1); RCW 9.94A-.507(6)(b). In contrast, the DOC argues, a determinate sentence, like here, usually results in a shorter supervision period under which the DOC has jurisdiction over the offender.”
In Re Hudgens, 233 P.3d 566 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 9.95.435(1); RCW 9.94A.507(6)(b). In contrast, the DOC argues, a determinate sentence, like here, usually results in a shorter supervision period under which the DOC has jurisdiction over the offender.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.435(2) — 1 case
Pers. Restraint Petition Of Luis Andre Perez (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “Perez instead argues that despite the violations, he should not be held responsible because he was coerced and pressured into the violations by Porter.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.435(4)(d) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of Eric Devin Cain (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “The court has since asked the parties to address whether a videoconference hearing violated Eric Cain’s rights under RCW 9.95.435. RCW 9.95.435(4)(d), a subsection of the statute that governs revocation of community custody, declares, in part: The offender shall have the right…”
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.