HB 2595
In CommitteeHouse
Collateral attacks/criminal
Concerning collateral attacks on judgment and sentence in criminal cases.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill extends the deadline for filing post-conviction challenges (like personal restraint petitions) from one year to three years after a conviction becomes final, and clarifies how and when judgments are considered final. It also updates rules for the Office of Public Defense to provide limited legal services in certain post-conviction cases and requires the Department of Corrections to notify currently incarcerated people about the new time limits.
- Extends the time limit for filing post-conviction challenges (called 'collateral attacks') from one year to three years after a conviction becomes final.
- Clarifies that 'collateral attack' includes personal restraint petitions, habeas corpus petitions, motions to vacate, motions to withdraw guilty pleas, motions for new trials, and motions to arrest judgment.
- Defines when a judgment becomes final — on the date filed, when an appeal is resolved, or when the U.S. Supreme Court denies review (filing a motion to reconsider does not delay finality).
- Requires the Department of Corrections to notify people currently incarcerated or under supervision (as of the bill’s effective date) about the new time limits.
- Allows the Office of Public Defense to provide direct representation for indigent individuals challenging convictions in collateral attacks (e.g., under RCW 10.73.150), and to manage short-term attorney coverage for phone/video consultations when contracted attorneys are unavailable.
- Permits Office of Public Defense employees to provide pro bono legal services in their personal capacity, with required written acknowledgments from clients that the state is not liable and services are not official office representation.
Who is affected
- People currently serving felony sentences or under community supervision — Individuals currently incarcerated or under supervision (probation, parole, or community supervision) as of the bill's effective date will receive notice from the Department of Corrections about the new time limits for filing post-conviction challenges.
- People with prior felony convictions seeking post-conviction relief — People convicted of felonies who were sentenced before the bill takes effect may lose the ability to challenge their convictions after three years unless they file earlier, even if they were previously allowed more time under older law.
- Public defense attorneys and staff — Attorneys and staff in the Office of Public Defense may need to adjust how they provide legal services, especially regarding limited coverage for consultations and handling pro bono work, while ensuring compliance with ethical rules.
- County governments (especially through health care authorities and courts) — Counties may need to coordinate with the Department of Corrections and the Office of Public Defense to ensure proper notification of time limits and funding for mental health commitment cases.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Extending the filing deadline from one to three years gives incarcerated individuals — especially those with meritorious claims who missed the prior deadline due to lack of legal access, disability, or systemic delays — a fairer opportunity to challenge unlawful convictions. This aligns with constitutional principles of due process and equal protection.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (3)(a)-(c); Sec. 2Clarifying when a judgment becomes final — including that a motion to reconsider denial of certiorari does *not* delay finality — prevents procedural gamesmanship by the state and ensures predictability for both petitioners and courts, reducing arbitrary extensions of deadlines.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)Authorizing the Office of Public Defense to provide limited short-term coverage for consultations and pro bono services fills critical gaps in legal access — especially for individuals released from incarceration who fall through the cracks between public defense and private attorneys.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2), (4)Explicitly permitting the Office of Public Defense to provide representation in involuntary commitment cases strengthens due process rights for individuals facing civil commitment — a high-stakes proceeding where legal representation significantly improves outcomes.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(5)The DOC notification requirement may reduce the number of procedurally defaulted claims by informing incarcerated people of deadlines, thereby improving the quality and timeliness of post-conviction filings — potentially reducing frivolous or late petitions that strain court resources.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2
Potential Concerns (5)
Extending the post-conviction filing deadline from one to three years gives incarcerated individuals more time to seek relief, but the retroactive application to people already serving sentences creates a narrow window for those whose convictions became final more than one year ago but less than three — many of whom may have been unaware of their rights or lacked legal access previously. This benefits only a subset of currently incarcerated people, not all, and excludes those whose judgments became final over three years ago.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), (3)(a)-(c); Sec. 2Mandatory notification by DOC to currently incarcerated individuals about the new filing deadline may increase awareness of legal rights, but could also create confusion or false expectations if individuals misunderstand the scope or timing of relief, potentially leading to untimely filings or missed opportunities — especially for those with limited legal literacy or cognitive impairments.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2Clarifying what constitutes a 'collateral attack' improves consistency in how courts interpret post-conviction remedies, but also risks narrowing access by reinforcing rigid procedural boundaries — courts may now dismiss claims that fall outside the listed categories (e.g., constitutional challenges not explicitly named), even if they merit review.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Allowing public defense employees to provide pro bono legal services in their personal capacity may expand access to legal help for some formerly incarcerated people, but the requirement for written client acknowledgments and the explicit exclusion of state liability may deter attorneys from participating or leave clients without recourse if errors occur.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(4)Expanding the Office of Public Defense’s authority to provide representation in involuntary commitment cases improves access to legal counsel for vulnerable individuals in mental health proceedings — but this is a minor addition to existing duties and does not address systemic underfunding of public defense in civil mental health cases.
HealthcareLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Currently incarcerated individuals have the greatest opportunity to benefit — especially those whose convictions became final between 1 and 3 years ago. However, those whose convictions became final over 3 years ago lose any chance for relief under the new law, creating a cutoff that harms some long-term incarcerated people.
Previously incarcerated individuals who were released more than 3 years ago after conviction are excluded entirely from the new deadline extension, even if they have valid claims. This group is likely to experience negative impact due to loss of potential remedies.
Public defense attorneys gain new authority to provide limited representation and pro bono services, but must navigate new administrative and ethical requirements. The impact is mixed: expanded authority but added compliance burden and liability exposure.
Counties may face modest administrative costs to coordinate with DOC and OPD on notifications and mental health representation, but no significant new fiscal burden is identified. Courts may see a modest increase in filings, but likely not a surge given the three-year cap.