×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Personal Restraint Petition Challenging Restitution Granted in Washington State
On August 8, 2007, a prosecutor in Spokane County, Washington filed and was granted ex parte motions and orders extending jurisdiction for an additional 10 years against Andrew Brady to recover the balance of the restitution and penalties he owed stemming from his Juvenile convictions in 1995 and 1996 for theft and malicious mischief. In response to the 2007 filing, Brady filed consolidated Personal Restraint Petitions (PRP) challenging those orders.
Brady contended that the State’s motions were filed after the 10-year statutory time limit for such filings had expired. The State, on the other hand, having filed in August 2007, argued the orders were enforceable because the 10-year period did not begin until Brady’s 18th birthday on September 9, 1997. Brady’s position, with which the appellate court agreed, was that the 10-year period began at the time of his conviction and the imposition of the restitution and penalties. The court determined the State’s filing was untimely because the window for such actions closed 10 years after the disposition of the initial convictions, which occurred in 1995 and 1996. Therefore, Brady’s PRPs were granted, and he was absolved of his remaining financial obligations with the State. See: In re PRP Brady, Wash. App., Div. III, #27005-0-III; 27061-1-III.
Brady contended that the State’s motions were filed after the 10-year statutory time limit for such filings had expired. The State, on the other hand, having filed in August 2007, argued the orders were enforceable because the 10-year period did not begin until Brady’s 18th birthday on September 9, 1997. Brady’s position, with which the appellate court agreed, was that the 10-year period began at the time of his conviction and the imposition of the restitution and penalties. The court determined the State’s filing was untimely because the window for such actions closed 10 years after the disposition of the initial convictions, which occurred in 1995 and 1996. Therefore, Brady’s PRPs were granted, and he was absolved of his remaining financial obligations with the State. See: In re PRP Brady, Wash. App., Div. III, #27005-0-III; 27061-1-III.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re PRP of Brady
| Year | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Wash. App., Div. III, #27005-0-III; 27061-1-III. |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |