This bill amends RCW 9.94A.647 to require resentencing hearings and related procedures when a current or prior robbery in the second degree conviction or charge was used to find an offender was, or would have been, a persistent offender. It assigns the Office of Public Defense (OPD) to review sentencing records for such uses of robbery in the second degree, to move for relief from an exceptional sentence to the original sentencing court when appropriate, and to notify identified persons and share information with county public defenders and county prosecutors. The bill creates two specific eligibility paths for resentencing: (1) the offender was sentenced as a persistent offender based on a current or past robbery in the second degree; or (2) the offender is serving an exceptional sentence from a plea agreement that avoided a possible persistent offender sentence, had two prior convictions under RCW 9.94A.030 at sentencing, and the arrest, charge, or at least one prior conviction includes robbery in the second degree. If the court finds the offender eligible it must grant the motion and immediately set a resentencing date; a guilty plea by an offender seeking resentencing under this section may not be withdrawn. At resentencing the court must sentence the offender as if robbery in the second degree were not a most serious offense. This is a modification of existing law that makes a procedural change to sentencing and resentencing and changes how robbery in the second degree is treated for persistent offender findings and exceptional sentences. It requires the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections to provide plea agreement data to OPD on request. The extracted text does not include statutory definitions of key terms (for example, “office of public defense,” “robbery in the second degree,” “persistent offender,” or “exceptional sentence”) nor full procedural details or timeframes; those appear to be located in other statutes cited (RCW 9.94A.030 and RCW 9.94A.345) but are not provided here.

If passed, the law would likely lead to a series of resentencing hearings for people whose persistent‑offender or exceptional sentences were based on a robbery in the second degree charge or conviction. The Office of Public Defense must review past sentencing records, notify people who appear eligible, and file motions asking courts to resentence them; courts must grant those motions if eligibility is found and immediately schedule resentencing, where the judge must treat robbery in the second degree as not being a “most serious” offense. For affected offenders this creates a realistic chance of being resentenced under lower offense classifications and could reduce or change their sentences, though guilty pleas filed to seek resentencing cannot be withdrawn. Practical impacts for government actors include added workloads and data requests: the Office of Public Defense will incur review and notification responsibilities, county public defenders and prosecutors will get lists of potentially eligible people, and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Corrections must provide plea agreement data when asked. The text provided does not specify detailed procedures, timing, or definitions for terms like “persistent offender” or “exceptional sentence,” so the exact number of cases, staffing needs, and fiscal costs are uncertain.