Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9A · Chapter 9A.76
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.130 (2026)

Escape in the third degree

✓ 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 person is guilty of escape in the third degree if he or she:
(a) Escapes from custody; or
(b) Knowingly violates the terms of an electronic monitoring program.
(2) Escape in the third degree is a misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
(3)(a) If the person has one prior conviction for escape in the third degree, escape in the third degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(b) If the person has two or more prior convictions for escape in the third degree, escape in the third degree is a class C felony.
[ 2015 c 287 s 11; 2011 c 336 s 403; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.76.130.]

Notes:

Term of escaped prisoner recaptured: RCW 9.31.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.76.130(1). Again, however, whether McGinnis was in custody while in the hospital is disputed.”
State v. Gomez, 152 Wash. App. 751 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Gomez escaped from custody, RCW 9A.76.130 (escape in the third degree).”
State v. Walls, 106 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
State v. Walls, 25 P.3d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
State v. Gomez, 217 P.3d 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Gomez escaped from custody, RCW 9A.76.130 (escape in the third degree).”
State Of Washington v. Michael Sean Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “Specifically, he contends the State was required to charge him under RCW 9A.76.130, which defines third degree escape to include knowing violations of the terms of an electronic monitoring program.”
State v. Kenney, 595 P.2d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “By a second amended information, Kenney was charged with the crime of third-degree escape in violation of RCW 9A.76.130, a gross misdemeanor, and the crime designated in the information as "Unlawful Larceny of Forest Products" in violation of RCW 79.”
State of Washington v. Garry Brandon Ault (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “RCW 9A.76.130. These three degrees of escape, with varying seriousness levels, reflect the legislature’s intent to treat escape after being arrested or detained by police differently from escape after being formally charged by information or indictment.”
State Of Washington v. Joshua Mason Webb (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “120, and RCW 9A.76.130. By signing it, the WER program participant acknowledges that violating the program policies will result in disciplinary action and potential escape charges.”
State of Washington v. Jamie Michael Mason (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “RCW 9A.76.130. Mason’s conduct met the statutory elements of first degree escape and exceeded the elements of both second and third degree escape.”
State of Washington v. David Raymond Mullins (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 9A.76.130. Thus, while the location and reason for custody may matter for the inferior degrees of escape, it is not relevant for first degree escape.”
In the Matter of the Pers. Restraint of: Shannon Bruce Morley (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Morley, because he had no prior convictions for third degree escape, the court lacked a factual basis for a felony conviction.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.130(1) — 4 cases
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). “RCW 9A.76.130(1). Again, however, whether McGinnis was in custody while in the hospital is disputed.”
State v. Walls, 106 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
State v. Walls, 25 P.3d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
State of Washington v. Javier Sanchez (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.130(1)(a) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Garry Brandon Ault (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 9A.76.130. These three degrees of escape, with varying seriousness levels, reflect the legislature’s intent to treat escape after being arrested or detained by police differently from escape after being formally charged by information or indictment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.130(1)(b) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Michael Sean Thompson (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Specifically, he contends the State was required to charge him under RCW 9A.76.130, which defines third degree escape to include knowing violations of the terms of an electronic monitoring program.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.76.130(2) — 2 cases
State v. Walls, 106 Wash. App. 792 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
State v. Walls, 25 P.3d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 9A.76.130(1). The three degrees of escape each carry a different penalty.”
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.