This bill adds a new section to chapter 9.94A RCW creating a resentencing procedure for people whose offender score was increased by juvenile adjudications that are not scorable under RCW 9.94A.525 as that section is enacted when a petition is filed. It is a procedural change that establishes who may petition, the timing and time-served thresholds for eligibility, an expedited resentencing process with a rebuttable presumption in favor of resentencing, and specific, limited grounds on which a court may deny resentencing. If granted, resentencing must proceed as if the non-scorable juvenile adjudications were not included in the original offender score. Eligibility is limited to offenses committed before July 23, 2023, and to people currently in total confinement with a release date of July 1, 2026, or later, who meet the time-served thresholds that phase down from 80%/20 years to any time served by July 1, 2028. A court may deny a petition only for specified reasons, including a significant disciplinary record (referencing DOC 460.050 infraction codes), an insufficient record of rehabilitation or programming, or a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is more likely than not to commit new felony violations if resentenced. The earliest release after resentencing is no sooner than six months after the resentencing hearing; denials may be appealed and a denied petition may be refiled no earlier than three years after denial unless the court allows earlier. The bill includes procedural protections for victims and witnesses, requires notice and opportunity to be heard, authorizes the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy—subject to appropriations—to contract for victim advocacy services and a flexible victim support fund, and provides that indigent eligible petitioners may have counsel appointed at no cost for the petition unless they waive counsel, while also stating the subsection does not create a general entitlement to state-funded counsel to petition the sentencing court. The new section applies retroactively to persons incarcerated on its effective date, but the text here does not state that effective date, does not include the content of RCW 9.94A.525 or DOC 460.050, and conditions the act on funding: the act is null and void if specific funding is not provided in the omnibus appropriations act by June 30, 2025.

If enacted, this law creates a new, time-phased pathway for people in state prison whose offender score was inflated by certain juvenile adjudications to ask for resentencing based on excluding those juvenile points; many eligible incarcerated people could see their offender score recalculated, which may shorten their remaining term and allow release no sooner than six months after a resentencing hearing. County superior courts will likely see more petitions and must grant resentencing when the statutory criteria are met unless specific misconduct, lack of rehabilitation, or a demonstrated risk to public safety is shown; DOC must consider existing reentry plans for those close to release, and indigent eligible petitioners can be appointed counsel for the petition process (though the provision also limits any broader entitlement to state-funded counsel). The practical burden and costs will fall on county courts, prosecuting attorneys (who must notify and accommodate victims), the Department of Corrections, and the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy, which is expected—if funded—to contract for victim advocacy services and run a flexible support fund; this will likely require new appropriations and staffing. Key implementation details are unclear here, including which juvenile adjudications are considered “not scorable,” the effective date of the section, how “insignificant” rehabilitation is judged, the specific DOC infraction codes referenced, and the amount and timing of any appropriations; the act is also null and void if the omnibus appropriations act does not include funding by June 30, 2025.