Facts:  Petitioner Chad Pierce was convicted of two counts of first degree child molestation in the Superior Court for King County and incarcerated.  Shortly thereafter, the Department of Corrections began to deduct costs associated with Pierce’s incarceration from Pierce’s inmate trust account.  In order to stop the deductions, Pierce subsequently filed a personal restraint petition that asserted that the Department of Corrections may not deduct costs associated with his incarceration from his inmate trust account because such costs were not among the legal financial obligations imposed as part of his judgment and sentence.  The Washington Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as frivolous.  Pierce appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s):  Is the Department of Corrections authorized to deduct costs associated with Pierce’s incarceration from Pierce’s inmate trust account?

Conclusion:  Justice Stephens’ opinion for the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that although Pierce’s was not ordered to pay costs associated with his incarceration as part of his judgment and sentence, the deductions were authorized by Washington Revised Code §72.09.111 and Washington Revised Code §72.09.480, which require the Department of Corrections to deduct costs associated with incarceration from inmates’ trust accounts even when they are not court-ordered.  The Court also held that language in Pierce’s judgment and sentence providing for a payment schedule for Pierce’s legal financial obligations set by a community corrections officer does not toll Pierce’s legal financial obligations while Pierce is incarcerated and that the Department of Corrections is not required to issue a notice of payroll deduction prior to deducting such obligations from Pierce’s inmate trust account.

Docket No. 83731-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63110-1)

Petitioner: Chad Pierce

(Counsel: Harry Williams, Suzanne Elliott, Sarah Dunne, Nancy Talner, and Travis Stearns)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: Douglas Wayne Carr)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 7-2

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander
(Dissent)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens
(Majority)

Wiggins