This past week the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that any person seeking to vacate a conviction record is required to present the judge with evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation. (State v. Abrams, No. 103058-4 Apr. 30, 2026).

This decision comes three years after the same court issued its decision in Hawkins, where it ruled that in order for a judge to decide whether to vacate a conviction the judge should rely on evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation. Here is what the court wrote in Hawkins;

Information relevant to rehabilitation will be specific to each individual and each crime. For example, if the individual has a substance use problem that contributed to the crime, information that they have taken steps to address that problem will be relevant to rehabilitation. Likewise, if the individual has mental health issues or an anger management problem, evidence that they have addressed those issues will be relevant.

State v. Hawkins, 200 Wn.2d 477 (2022)

Now, based on the Abrams decision, providing the court with evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation is required, and a judge may not rule on a vacate petition without reviewing this evidence.

What does this mean? What should you do?

We have had vacate laws in Washington for almost forty years, but we have never addressed whether there should be limits to judicial discretion when vacating a conviction. Traditionally, judges have a lot of leeway in making decisions based upon discretion. But in dealing with vacate petitions, unfettered discretion can be a problem.

A few years ago, a judge rejected a vacate petition for a unique reason. A person was charged with a serious sexual assault. Prior to trial, however, the prosecutor plea bargained the charge to a lesser charge, and the defendant plead guilty. The plea bargain meant that the defendant could now file a vacate petition, whereas the original charge was excluded from the vacate law. When the defendant filed the vacate request, the judge denied it. Why? Because according to the judge the original charge was so serious, and the allegation of misconduct so inappropriate, that the judge refused to grant the vacate request.

To be honest, such a ruling from the judge may not appear wrong. But here is the problem. We have a lot of judges. Each judge will have a different perspective on what kind of charge, and what kind of behavior displayed in the commission of a crime, may compel them to reject a vacate request. This will lead to inconsistent rulings across the state, and could lead to accusations of bias impacting those decisions.

Creating a rule that focuses discretion on post-conviction rehabilitation largely solves the problem. Now, all judges must focus on the same thing; how a person has rehabilitated themselves since conviction instead of focusing on the crime that was committed. This gives the person the chance to prove themselves to the court; to show they are a different person than when the offense was committed.

For over sixteen years I have worked individually with each client to present evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation to the court. Even before the courts required it, it has been our belief that providing this kind of information will always help our clients cases. Now that courts will require this information, we feel we have the advantage of knowing how to help clients present this helpful and relevant information to the court.

So, what should you do? The issue of rehabilitation will always be unique to each individual. You need a lawyer who is willing to work with you to tell your story. We are here to help you, and we have the track record and experience to help you present your case to the court the right way.

 Please call or email Robertson Law with any questions you may have about your case.