In re the Personal Restraint of Pierce

173 Wash. 2d 372 (2011) · Supreme Court of Washington · December 29, 2011

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections has independent statutory authority to deduct costs of incarceration from an inmate’s trust account, even when the sentencing court waived such costs. The court also held that the Department may deduct legal financial obligations during confinement and need not issue a notice of payroll deduction before doing so. The court dismissed Pierce’s personal restraint petition.

Holdings

  1. The Department of Corrections has independent statutory authority under RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 to deduct non-court-ordered costs of incarceration, regardless of whether the trial court waived court-ordered costs of incarceration under former RCW 9.94A.760(2).
  2. The Department may deduct legal financial obligations from an inmate's account while the inmate is confined, notwithstanding judgment-and-sentence language providing for payment on a schedule established by a community corrections officer.
  3. An inmate's legal financial obligation payment duties are not tolled during confinement under former RCW 9.94A.545 or former RCW 9.94A.625(3).
  4. The Department is not required to issue a notice of payroll deduction before deducting LFOs from a confined inmate's account.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Department of Corrections has independent statutory authority under RCW 72.09.111 and RCW 72.09.480 to deduct costs of incarceration despite the trial court's waiver of court-ordered costs of incarceration under former RCW 9.94A.760(2).
  2. Whether the Department may deduct legal financial obligations from an inmate's account while the inmate is confined when the judgment and sentence provides for payment on a schedule established by a community corrections officer.
  3. Whether confinement tolls an inmate's legal financial obligation payment duties under former RCW 9.94A.545 or former RCW 9.94A.625(3).
  4. Whether the Department must issue a notice of payroll deduction before deducting legal financial obligations from a confined inmate's account.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (9)

  • In re Pers. Restraint of Gentry, 170 Wn.2d 711, 714-15, 245 P.3d 766 (2010)(followed)
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Lord, 123 Wn.2d 296, 303, 868 P.2d 835 (1994)(followed)
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Grantham, 168 Wn.2d 204, 214, 227 P.3d 285 (2010)(followed)
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Sappenfield, 138 Wn.2d 588, 595, 980 P.2d 1271 (1999)(followed)
  • Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)(followed)
  • Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 373, 173 P.3d 228 (2007)(followed)
  • State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003)(followed)
  • Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 137 Wn.2d 957, 963, 977 P.2d 554 (1999)(followed)
  • In re Personal Restraint of Martin, 129 Wn. App. 135, 118 P.3d 387 (2005)(approved)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court