×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Trial Court Erred in Extending Jurisdiction over Restitution Collection Outside Ten-Year Window
By Brandon Sample
The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington vacated an order extending a trial court’s jurisdiction to ensure collection of restitution order.
The court’s decision comes in response to a personal restraint petition filed by James Schlosser. Schlosser was convicted in 1998 of second-degree theft, and ordered to pay restitution and serve 30 days in jail.
At the time that Schlosser was convicted trial courts had ten years from the time of sentencing or release from imprisonment, whichever occurring later, to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the collection of restitution. The Legislature changed that policy in 2000, eliminating the ten-year period, but did not apply the change retroactively.
The trial court in Schlosser’s case entered an order in 2009 extending its jurisdiction over Schlosser’s case. The court of appeals, agreeing with Schlosser, held that the court lacked the authority to enter the order extending jurisdiction because the ten-year window for doing so expired. See: In re PRP of Schlosser, No. 28227-9-III (Ct. of Appeals- Washington)
The Court of Appeals for the State of Washington vacated an order extending a trial court’s jurisdiction to ensure collection of restitution order.
The court’s decision comes in response to a personal restraint petition filed by James Schlosser. Schlosser was convicted in 1998 of second-degree theft, and ordered to pay restitution and serve 30 days in jail.
At the time that Schlosser was convicted trial courts had ten years from the time of sentencing or release from imprisonment, whichever occurring later, to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the collection of restitution. The Legislature changed that policy in 2000, eliminating the ten-year period, but did not apply the change retroactively.
The trial court in Schlosser’s case entered an order in 2009 extending its jurisdiction over Schlosser’s case. The court of appeals, agreeing with Schlosser, held that the court lacked the authority to enter the order extending jurisdiction because the ten-year window for doing so expired. See: In re PRP of Schlosser, No. 28227-9-III (Ct. of Appeals- Washington)
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 Schlosser
| Year | 2010 |
|---|---|
| Cite | No. 28227-9-III (Ct. of Appeals- Washington) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |