Opinion ID: 2580943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Minimum Term & Release Date: Two Distinct Terms

Text: The court of Appeals concluded that, since under RCW 13.40.210(1) it is the function of DSHS to set a juvenile's release date, DSHS has the authority to set a juvenile's minimum term. The State argues that the Court of Appeals erred in this conclusion by using minimum term and release date interchangeably. We agree. A legislative body is presumed not to use nonessential words. State v. Lundquist, 60 Wash.2d 397, 403, 374 P.2d 246 (1962). In reviewing an ordinance or statute, we are bound to give meaning, if possible, to every word contained in it. Id. When the Legislature uses different words within the same statute, we recognize that a different meaning is intended. Haley v. Highland, 142 Wash.2d 135, 147, 12 P.3d 119 (2000). The words minimum term and release date are found throughout the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, chapter 13.40 RCW, [10] and have also been used within the same paragraph in a statute. Former RCW 13.40.210 (1994), which governs the setting of the release date, states in relevant part: (1) The [DSHS] secretary shall ... set a release or discharge date for each juvenile committed to its custody.... Such dates shall be determined prior to the expiration of sixty percent of a juvenile's minimum term of confinement included within the prescribed range to which the juvenile has been committed. LAWS OF 1994, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 7, § 527 [11] (emphasis added). This example alone makes clear that release date and minimum term have two separate meanings and that the only synonymous terms are release and discharge. From the plain reading of the statute, it is apparent that it is the function of DSHS to set the release or discharge date. [12] It is equally apparent that a minimum term must first be in existence before a release or discharge date is set. Although it is conceivable that the minimum term may be the same date as the release date, it is not always the case nor should it be presumed to be. See In re Pers. Restraint of Tapley, 72 Wash.App. 440, 448, 865 P.2d 12 (1994) ([A] juvenile's release date may be set at the minimum, maximum, or anywhere in between.). Treating the terms synonymously, the Court of Appeals framed the issue in this case as whether DSHS has the exclusive authority to set a juvenile's minimum term under RCW 13.40.210(1). Beaver, 110 Wash.App. at 522-23, 41 P.3d 1222. Yet, RCW 13.40.210 deals specifically with the setting of the juvenile's release date. The Court of Appeals' interpretation of the statute blurs the distinction between the two terms. The function of setting a minimum term should not be confused with the statutory authority of DSHS to set the release date of juveniles in confinement.