In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of Chad A. Pierce

268 P.3d 907 (Wash. 2011) · Supreme Court of Washington · December 29, 2011 · No. No. 83731-7

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections had independent statutory authority to deduct costs of incarceration and legal financial obligations from Chad Pierce's inmate trust account. The court further held that such deductions could occur during confinement and did not require prior notice of payroll deduction. The court dismissed Pierce's personal restraint petition, with one justice dissenting in part.

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 from an inmate's account, regardless of whether the sentencing court waived 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; judgment language providing for a payment schedule established by a community corrections officer does not delay collection during confinement.
  3. An offender's payment obligations are not tolled while the offender is confined 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 from an inmate's account despite a sentencing court's waiver of court-ordered costs of incarceration.
  2. Whether the Department may deduct legal financial obligations from an inmate's account while the inmate is confined, notwithstanding judgment language providing for payment on a schedule established by a community corrections officer.
  3. Whether confinement tolls an offender's payment obligations under the community custody tolling statutes.
  4. Whether the Department must issue a notice of payroll deduction before deducting legal financial obligations from a confined inmate's account.
  5. Whether the challenged deductions constituted unlawful restraint under RAP 16.4.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (9)

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

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