Opinion ID: 2521544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonable consistency

Text: Addleman essentially argues his restraint is unlawful because his sentence is significantly longer than the standard range provided for in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981(SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW. To determine whether he is correct, we must balance two duties placed on the ISRB. The ISRB shall attempt to make decisions reasonably consistent with the SRA. RCW 9.95.009(2). [3] However, that duty must be balanced with the fact that prisoners serving indeterminate sentences are not resentenced under the SRA. In fact, the ISRB shall not, however, until his or her maximum term expires, release a prisoner, unless in its opinion his or her rehabilitation has been complete and he or she is a fit subject for release. RCW 9.95.100 (emphasis added). We conclude that between a statutory requirement that a prisoner is not to be released until rehabilitation is complete and a duty to attempt consistency with the SRA, the statutory requirement trumps the duty to attempt. The two duties, however, are not mutually exclusive but can be exercised in harmony with each another. The ISRB must make reasonable attempts to set its minimum sentences consistent with the SRA but has no duty to parole an unrehabilitated prisoner.