Legal Opinion

In re the Personal Restraint of Sappenfield

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1999No. Nos. 65577-4; 67380-2PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

— Sappenfield filed two separate personal restraint petitions (PRPs) in different divisions of the Court of Appeals. In both PRPs, Sappenfield challenged the Department of Correction’s ongoing attempt to collect payments owed on restitution orders stemming from 1986 convictions in two different counties. The two Court of Appeals’ decisions reached different results, and those decisions were consolidated for review. We find the sentencing courts’ jurisdiction over those 1986 restitution orders lapsed and order the Department of Corrections to stop its collection efforts on the 1986 orders.

FACTS

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. DavisonWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Duke v. BoydWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Duke v. BoydWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. HenningsWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. HenningsWashington Supreme Court · 1996

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In Re PierceWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  2. In re the Personal Restraint of PierceWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. In Re SappenfieldWashington Supreme Court · 1999

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API